Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner, who was serving as Senior manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, has been compulsorily retired by way of punishment on account of allegation of misappropriation of the funds to the tune of Rs. 15.00 lacs by rising two fictitious demand loans for Rs. 5.00 lacs in the account of one Sh. K.S. Johal and Rs. 10.00 lacs in the account of Sh. Balraj Johal against NRE deposits on 25.10.2004. For this, the Petitioner was chargsheeted on 18.4.2006 and a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him.
(2.) THE grievance of the Petitioner is that immediately after receipt of chargesheet, he submitted a letter dated 8.5.2006 praying to supply the copies of the documents for effectively defending himself. The Petitioner also prayed for providing the statement of witnesses. In response the Petitioner was informed that there was no pre -recorded statement of any witness and thus, could not be supplied to him. The grievance of the Petitioner further is that some additional documents were taken on record, which were not part and parcel of the documents supplied alongwith the chargesheet. As many as 53 additional documents were taken on record by the inquiry officer. The Petitioner ultimately was held guilty of the allegations and show cause notice was issued to him. The Petitioner had filed an appeal/representation against this order urging that no additional document could be taken on record by the inquiry officer as per the regulations. His representation, however, was rejected on 28.9.2006. A letter dated 18.11.2006 was received by the Petitioner asking him to submit list of defence documents and defence witnesses. Through another letter, three days' time was given to the Petitioner for submission of defence documents and defence witnesses. In fact, the Petitioner claims that after the first date of the hearing i.e. 13.9.2006, the presenting officer had given the list of nearly 37 additional documents and there was no occasion for him to submit defence documents and defence witnesses. The Petitioner, accordingly, submitted a letter dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure P -7) for placing on record nearly 38 documents in his defence.
(3.) PLEA is that the Petitioner did not get fair chance to defend. The disciplinary authority on the basis of finding of the inquiry officer holding the Petitioner guilty, passed the order of his compulsorily retirement on 17.4.2007. The Petitioner would allege that the inquiry was conducted in a manner prejudicing his right to defend and in violation of principle of natural justice. Grievance is that his request for placing on record 38 defence documents relied upon by him, was rejected. The appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected on 2.5.2008. The Petitioner, thereafter, has filed this writ petition to impugn his punishment.;