Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J - (1.) . - The writ petitioner was a cash- clerk in Bank of India. He had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from a constituent account by using an unused leaf taken out from the check book of the particular constituent. The writ petitioner was served with a charge-sheet to which he replied to the inquiry proceeding was held by the inquiry officer named in the charge-sheet. Before the inquiry officer the charges were proved through admission as recorded in the report of the inquiry, annexed to the writ petition appearing at pages 32-35 thereof. On the basis of the said inquiry report a second show-cause notice was served and the writ petitioner ultimately suffered the order of dismissal dated 20th March, 1997, appearing at pages 40-42 thereof.
(2.) Mr. Debasish Kar Gupta, learned Counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that (i) Since the charge-sheet had already named the inquiry officer the element of bias is apparent on the face of it and the inquiry proceeding is vitiated on that ground alone. (ii) So-called admission made by the writ petitioner was made on the assurance that he was given lighter punishment. As such so-called admission could not be used against him and in any event, no attempt had been made on the part of the respondent to prove the charges, unless and until the charges were proved the order of dismissal could not have been passed. (iii) On the identical facts seven officers of the Bank from time to time had been given lighter punishment referred to in the affidavit-in-reply, the writ petitioner was given the punishment an order of dismissal without considering such aspect.
(3.) I have carefully perused the relevant papers annexed to the writ petition. It appears that the writ petitioner consistently contended that he admitted the charges on the assurances that he was given a lighter punishment. Nowhere the writ petitioner had denied the factum of admission nor any averment has ever been made either in those correspondence or in the pleadings that the said admission was extracted through coercion or by any other mala fide process. In absence of definite assertion and taking the sum total of the fact it is clear to me that there had been an unequivocal admission made on the part of the writ petitioner. Since the admission was not in dispute the contention that the charges were not proved, is not tenable.;