- (1.) By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to set aside the order of dismissal dated 21st June, 2006, so also the charge-sheet dated 1st July, 2005, the Enquiry Report dated 18th July, 2002 and the board resolution dated 20th July, 2006.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that on the ground of misappropriation of sums proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner put under suspension. Although enquiry was conducted no copy of the Enquiry Report was given to the petitioner, therefore, there has been violation of Rule 48(f) of the 1987 Rules. A writ petition was filed and during the pendency of the special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India from an order passed in contempt proceedings the Enquiry Report was submitted on 18th July, 2002 and the civil appeal and the special leave petition was disposed of with the direction that the there would be no impediment for the bank to take action on the basis of the Enquiry Report. Although a copy of the Enquiry Report was given to the petitioner and representations made, for non-service of the show cause notice with regard to the proposed punishment there has been violation of Rule 48(f) of the 1987 Rules. For the said proposition reliance is placed on and STATE OF UTTARANCHAL vs KHARAK SINGH, 2008 8 SCC 236.
(3.) The charge-sheet also does not give the list of witnesses. The Presiding Officer himself was a witness and no opportunity of cross- examination was given to the petitioner, instead it was the Enquiry Officer who conducted the crossexamination. The documents relied on have not been proved and production of documents is not enough as held in ROOP SINGH NEGI vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, 2009 2 SCC 570. From a reading of the Enquiry Report it will appear that in respect of each of the charges levelled a finding has been given by the Enquiry Officer and against each finding penalty proposed, this is beyond the jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer and renders the Enquiry Report bad. The Presiding Officer cannot be a Judge and a witness as held in 1984 2 SCC 578. From a reading of the order of dismissal it will appear that the legal measures recommended by the Enquiry Officer have been accepted and there is no independent finding. This evidences non-application of mind by the Board of Directors. No purpose will be served in filing an appeal and taking recourse to alternative remedy as the punishment has been imposed by the Board of Directors which is the appellate authority. There is no scope to make any further enquiry as the petitioner has retired. In fact, no punishment has been recommended in respect of charge-II which is the charge of misappropriation of funds and fraud. Reliance is placed on BHAGIRATHI JENA vs BOARD OF DIRECTORS, O S F C, 1999 3 SCC 666, RAJINDER KRISHAN KHANNA vs UNION OF INDIA, 1999 AIR(SC) 463, for the proposition that on retirement the proceeding initiated against the delinquent lapses and need not be proceeded with. The Regulations also do not provide for continuance of enquiry, therefore, the retiral benefits be paid to the petitioner. For all the said reasons, therefore, the order of dismissal be set aside.;