Siddharth, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing for the punishment order dated 30.11.1998, passed by respondent no.2, Regional Manager/ Disciplinary Authority, Allahabad Bank, Regional Office, District Hamirpur and appellate order dated 16.03.1999, passed by the respondent no.1, Assistant General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur.
(3.) The facts of the petition are that the petitioner, while being posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Allahabad Bank at Banda Branch was charge sheeted on 02.11.1995, on the ground that he came to office 30 minutes late and when on his asking Sri Y.K.Gupta, Officer of the Bank, did not give him cheques, instruments and documents for depositing at State Bank of India, Banda Branch, for clearing, he misbehaved with him. For submitting reply to the charge sheet, the petitioner demanded 3 documents, including complaint of Sri Y.K.Gupta on 18.11.1995, but it was not provided to him. The petitioner sought representation before the enquiry officer through Advocate, as per Clause- 19.12 (a) (iii) of First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 but it was rejected. However the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet stating that he was not performing the duty of clearing and had not come to the Bank late by 30 minutes and therefore, there was no question for demanding any cheques, etc., from Sri Y.K.Gupta and misbehaving with him. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated 27.02.1998 with the finding that the petitioner was not performing the duty of clearing nor he came late nor demanded papers from Sri Y.K.Gupta for clearing but he misbehaved with Sri Gupta. The enquiry officer also recorded the finding that Sri Gupta has admitted in his cross- examination that the petitioner had not misbehaved with him, but he observed that the petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in Clause -21 (iv) (d) of Sixth Bipartite Settlement dated 14.02.1995. A second show cause notice dated 27.02.1998 was issued to the petitioner enclosing therewith the findings of the enquiry officer and the petitioner submitted his reply dated 08.10.1998 thereto. The disciplinary authority without considering his reply to the findings of the enquiry officer, imposed the major penalty of stoppage of 3 future stagnation increments of petitioner with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an Appeal under Clause-19.14 of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 against the punishment order and also requested for personal hearing but without considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the evidence in support of the petitioner's case and also without granting him opportunity of personal hearing, his appeal was dismissed by the order dated 16.03.1999.;