- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 23, 2003, passed in the writ application being W. P. No. 14823 (W) of 2001. By the aforesaid judgment and order the above writ application was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts of the case in a nutshell, as revealed from the above writ application, were as follows:-A charge-sheet dated August 2, 1999, was issued against the appellant, who was working for gain as cash collector, under the Bank of Baroda, Beliaghata Branch. The appellant submitted his reply to the above charge-sheet denying all the charges. An enquiry proceeding was conducted against the appellant and the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated April 28, 2000 to the respondent no. 1, being the Disciplinary Authority, holding that the appellant inducted fake notes in the bank's cash in course of his duty on March 11, 1999. The appellant submitted his representation to the above enquiry report on June 27, 2000. By an order of punishment dated January 16, 2001, the respondent no. 1 dismissed the appellant from the services of the Bank of Baroda with effect from the date of order treating the period of suspension as period not spent on duty but entitling the appellant to increments and other monetary benefits falling due during the period of suspension. The appellant preferred a statutory appeal before the respondent No. 2 against the above order of punishment dated January 16, 2001. The respondent no. 2 dismissed the above appeal by an order dated March 12, 2001. The appellant filed the writ application which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated May 23, 2005. While dismissing the above writ application, a learned Single Judge of this Court noted that the Bank of Baroda, which was a necessary party, had not been impleaded as respondent to the writ proceeding. For the ends of justice, the court examined the merits of the writ application notwithstanding the omission of necessary and proper party but had not been able to sustain the challenge to the impugned orders.
(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge was in error in not setting aside the enquiry proceeding. According to the appellants the copy of the letter issued by the customer, if any, as also the circular/guidelines for detecting fake notes were not supplied to him by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer allegedly failed to call one Mr. Gopal Kumar Bubna, partner of M/s. Gaurav Expocom Ltd. and another Mr. Jay Dulal Sinha Ray, the then Senior Manager of Bank of Baroda, Beliaghata Branch, as witness on the prayer of the appellant. With regard to the enquiry report it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the fact that no reason was assigned by the enquiry officer to hold that the charge Nos. 3,4,5 and 6 of the charge-sheet under reference had been proved. The enquiry officer was allegedly wrong in holding that the onus to dislodge the charge no. 7 was upon the appellant. According to the appellant charge No. 8 was held to be proved without any basis.;