- (1.) As per the facts mentioned in the memo of writ petition, the petitioner joined the services of the New Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') on 5.1.1977 as a Clerk. He was promoted as an Accountant in Junior Management Grade Scale-I on 1-9-1983. The petitioner had been an active trade union worker right from 1978 and held several offices of the union and therefore, some times he had to come in conflict with the management of the Bank and incurred displeasure of high officials. On 31.5.1985, the General Secretary and Dy. General Secretary of All India New Bank Staff Association were terminated which orders were set aside by the Supreme Court on 22-7-1986. The termination of the two leaders aforesaid was protested against by the employees all over the country & the petitioner was also one of the several members of the deputation which was led on 8.6.85 before the Regional Manager at Jaipur, demanding the revokation of the orders of the aforesaid two leaders. An F.I.R. was lodged on 11.6.1985 by the bank management with regard to the alleged incident on 8.6.1985, though the petitioner was not named in the report. But he was placed under supension on 14.6.1985 along with two other employees namely S/Shri Arun Sharma and Mohan-Lal Sharma. The petitioner was thereafter subject to charge-sheets on various counts-(i) charged-sheet dated 4.10.1985 with regard to the alleged incident dated 8.6.1985, and (ii) charge-sheet dated 11.12.85 with regard to the alleged incident dated 3.6.1985. The petitioner had submitted reply to both the charge-sheets and an enquiry officer was appointed on 3.3.1986 without intimation to the petitioner. Before the Enquiry Officer could proceed, two more charge-sheets were issued on 19.4.1986 and 7.5.1986 to the petitioner. The enquiry commenced on 30.4.1986. An intimation about the said enquiry was sent vide letter dated 25.4.1986 which was received by the petitioner on 1.5.1986. On the next date of enquiry i. e. 9.5.1986, the petitioner demanded the copies of the rules and regulations relating to procedure of enquiry but they were not made available to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 28.5.1986 giving list of documents which should be made available to him for his defence. The petitioner again reiterated his grievance with regard to non-supply and non production of certain documents and objected to the procedure of enquiry. Ori 15.7.1986, the Enquiry Officer himself cross-examined witness MW-1 and therefore, the petitioner along with representative walked out of the room of the Enquiry Officer. On the next date i. e. 16.7.1986, the petitioner submitted an application in detail that proper opportunity to cross-examine MW-1 should be provided. On the next date also, the Enquiry Officer wanted to cross-examine MW-1 wlvich was objected to by the petitioner & since he started cross- examining, the petitioner did not further participate in the enquiry & the enquiry was held exparte. The petitionei Sent a registered letter to the disciplinary authority on 17.6.1986 apprising him of the partisan attitude and unfair treatment on the part of the Enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry and requested for change of the enquiring authority. On 29.7.1986, the petitioner informed the Enquiry Officer that he was running under temperature and his representative could not come from Delhi because of riots, law and order problem in Delhi. Yet, enquiry proceedings were held ex-parte on 29.7.86 also and MW-2 was also cross-examined by the enquiring authority himself. A bare perusal of the cross examination would show that the witnesses were cross-examined by the Enquiry Officer and in cross-examination, they deposed what they had not deposed in the examination-in chief. Proceedings were again held on 11.8.1986 and an application along with the doctor's prescription was sent by the petitioner that he was sick. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report with regard to the first and second charge on 29.8.1986 and with regard to the third and the fourth charge-sheet on 10.9.1986. On the basis of the enquiry reports, the General Manager (Personnel) purporting to be the petitioner's disciplinary authority passed an order on 6.11.1986 whereby the penalty of dismissal was awarded to the petitioner, it was further ordered that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any benefit for the suspension period. A telegraphic intimation about this order was sent to the petitioner. The telegram as w ll as the order dated 6.11.1986 had been served on the petitioner on 10.11.1986. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Regulation 17 before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director which was rejected on 23.5.1987. It is against these orders dt. 6.11.1985 and 23.5.1987 that the present writ petition was filed in this Court on 24.7.1987. The petitioner also placed on record copy of the statements recorded during the course of enquiry.
(2.) This writ petition was admitted on 16.9.87 and notices were issued to the respondents. Reply on behalf of the respondent Bank was filed on 30 11.1987 to which a rejoinder was also filed on behalf of the petitioner on Uth March, 1991. Arguments have been heard. Record of the case has also been perused.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently argued that a bare perusal of the statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer shows that the Enquiry Officer had put several questions in cross-examination and the witnesses have deposed many things which they did not depose in their examination-in-chief. This by itself is denial of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of appearing and participating in the enquiry and cross-examining the witnesses which also does not fulfil the fundamental principle of affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before he is condemned. In spite of the specific request by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer should be changed on the ground of bias, it was not acceded to and he was not afforded a reasonable apportunity.;