Arun Madan, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated i.e. (1) 12.7.1998 (Ann 5) asking for his explanation against complaints lodged by accounts holders of the Punjab National Bank (respondent), (2) 31.8.1990 (Ann 11) issuing a notice with inquiry report to show cause as to why a major punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed against him, (3) 3.12.1990 (Ann 2) imposing punishment of dismissal from service against him, (4) 9.5.1991 (Ann 14) dismissing his appeal against punishment order. Initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon on 19.3.1982, where after he was promoted as a result of his qualifying the requisite test and joined as Clerk cum Cashier on 26.9.1988. However, some of customers and accounts holders of the respondent Bank lodged complaints inter alia that their amounts for being deposited in the respective recurring bank accounts were collected by the petitioners but were not got deposited with the Bank and therefore, his explanation was called for by letter dated 12.7.1988 (Ann 5), to which reply (Ann R-2) was submitted by him on 24.9.1988. Ultimately a charge sheet (Ann-6) was issued to the petitioner on 4.3.1989, to which reply (Ann R-5) was filed by the petitioner on 13.3.1989 and inquiry officer was appointed on 6.4.1989 (Ann). The inquiry was concluded on 6.3.1990 & its report (Annex-6) was submitted to the disciplinary authority, which issued a notice (Ann 1 1), along with inquiry report to he petitioner for showing cause as to why a major punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. On 24.4.1990 the petitioner submitted his written arguments (Ann10) and he appeared on 30.1.1990 and personal hearing was afforded to him. However, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of his dismissal from service by order date. 3.12.1990 (Ann 2). Copy of complete enquiry proceedings and report has been filed as Annexure R/7. Against the punishment order (Ann 2) the petitioner preferred an appeal (Ann13) on 21.1.1991 but his appeal was dismissed after hearing him by order date. 9.5.1991 (Ann 14). Hence this writ petition.
(2.) Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned charge sheet does not state as to under which Rules or Act, it had been issued that the charge sheet was issued on the complaint made by one Narpat Singh but before the enquiry officer, Narpat Singh stated that he had never moved any complaint before any authority nor did give Rs. 800/- to the petitioner for its deposit in the Bank and similarly, other defence witness Hariram Meena stated that entries made in the A/c of the was not in the handwriting of the petitioner, which has been corroborated by the evidence of Basantilal (D.W.2). Thus, according to Shri Lodha, the inquiry officer has no jurisdiction or authority to disbelieve defence version of the complainant himself and in this view of the matter, the conclusion of the enquiry officer that charge No.1 stood proved, is not sustainable. That apart, the enquiry officer has not reached to a definite finding that the charge No. 1(b) is proved whereas has finding is that it seems to be proved and similarly, charge No.2 has been based upon surmises and conjectures inasmuch as there is no cogent evidence to prove it rather the enquiry officer, himself failed to conclude that charge No.2 was proved. As regards charge No.3 with regard to allegation of wilful absence from duty was also not proved on record.
(3.) Shri Lodha further contended that the disciplinary authority failed to consider material facts and evidence on record and therefore, the order of punishment of removal from service is not sustainable, inasmuch as the statutory appeal against punishment order has been dismissed by the appellate authority without a reasoned & speaking order, Shri Lodha cited the decisions in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (AIR 1985 SC 1416 : 1985 (3) SCC 398) : [1985(2) SLR 576 (SC)] , Ramachandran v. Union of India (1986 (3) SCC 103) : [1986(2) SLR 608 (SC)] , & Devki Nandan Sharma v. Union of India (2001 (5) SCC 404):12001(2) SLR 606 (SC)] .;