- (1.) C.M. Nos. 14320-C of 2015 Prayer in this application is for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2015. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the counsel for the applicant/appellant, the present application is allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number and the same is taken on Board for consideration. C.M. No. 804-C of 2011 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 12 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly PRERNA DATTA 2016.03.10 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document supported by the affidavit of the clerk of the counsel for the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed. Delay of 12 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. RSA No. 288 of 2011 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Karnal dated 23.03.2007, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the appellant-plaintiff with a prayer that the order dated 13.01.1990 passed by the Deputy General Manager, New Delhi dismissing him from service and the order dated 25.03.1992 passed in an appeal by the General Manager dismissing the appeal being null and void and declaring the appellant entitled to be deemed in service and all the consequential benefits with pay and allowances along with interest @ 18% per annum, stands dismissed, appeal against which preferred by the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Karnal on 01.05.2010.
(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the disciplinary proceedings, which have been initiated against the appellant, the Enquiry Officer has acted as a Presenting Officer and has cross-examined the witnesses of the Management. He contends that no opportunity to cross-examine the management-witnesses has been given to the appellant-plaintiff by the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, the principle of natural justice stands violated, because of which the enquiry report and the consequential order of dismissal by the disciplinary authority as also the appellate order cannot sustain. That apart, he contends that the punishing authority has not recorded the dissenting note with regard to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer qua charges No. 6, 8 and 12 which were PRERNA DATTA 2016.03.10 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document only partly proved and the Enquiry Officer has proceeded to punish the appellant-plaintiff by taking those charges into consideration violating Clause 7 (ii) of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976. He, thus, contends that the judgments and decree as passed by the Courts below without taking into consideration this aspect cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff decreed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and with his able assistance, have gone through the impugned judgments but do not find any illegality therein.;