ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order of removal dated 12th September, 1979 and the order dated 25th November, 1980 by which his appeal was rejected, on various grounds.
(2.) THE petitioner while serving with the respondent Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred as the respondent Bank) came to be served with the charge sheet on 17/18th May, 1976. By this charge sheet he was called upon to furnish his explanation in regard to the matters stated in the memo. THE petitioner submitted his reply on 25th May, 1976. His explanation was not found to be satisfactory, therefore, he was placed under suspension and a regular charge sheet was issued to him on i 3th November 1976 alongwith other person Shri O. P. Sharma. THE petitioner was informed by the Divisional Manager that Shri S. B. Saxena, Branch Manager, Greater Kailash, New Delhi has been nominated as enquiry officer to hold the enquiry against the petitioner. But this enquiry officer was changed and in his place one Mr. M. M. Lalla, Chief Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner as well as O. P. Sharma and the petitioner was asked to participate in the enquiry which was conducted against O. P. Sharma. It is stated that the petitioner has raised an objection that the mangement has not complied with the instructions contained in para 19-14 of the Bipartite Settlement Some witnesses were also examined, namely, Sarva Shri N. K. Gupta, R. K. Sharma, D. R. Nahta and S. C. Jain and their depositions were recorded. Since the charge against the petitioner and O. P. Sharma were some what common, therefore, this enquiry against the petitioner and Shri O. P. Sharma was agreed to be taken together. While the enquiry was going on and during the pendency of enquiry another supplementary charge sheet dated 3rd February, 1978 was also served on the petitioner and Shri MM. Lalla was appointed as enquiry officer in respect of the second charge sheet also. THEreafter the second enquiry was started on 13th February, 1979 and concluded on 14th February, 1970. In the course of this enquiry, the Department examined Sarva Shri V. K. Chopra, N. K. Gupta, S. C. Jain in support of this case. After both the parties filed their written argument and the enquiry officer after hearing both of them recorded his finding and found the petitioner guilty of the charges. THEreafter, the petitioner was called upon to submit his submissions regarding quantum of punishment- THE petitioner submitted his objection regarding quantum of punishment and ultimately the petitioner came to be dismissed from service vide Annexurel2 and this order was communicated to the petitioner by the Chief Manager by his communication dated 15th September 1979 (Annexure-13 ). Aggrieved against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority by its order dated 25th October, 1979 dismissed the appeal vide Annexure-14. Aggrieved against this the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of punishment as well as appellate order are non-speaking order, thereafter they have to be quashed. In this connection he has referred to the cases of A. L. Kalra Vs. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. (1), Phool Chand Vs. The State of Rajasthan (2), Hari Narain Vs. Union of India (3) and The State of Rajasthan Vs. Amolak Chand Sanghi (4 ). Before I deal with arguments, it will be necessary to reproduce both the charge sheets against the petitioner. They read as under:- "shri K. M. Gang, Teller (clerk under Suspension) of Jalorigate, Jodh-pur Branch is hereby informed that his explanation dt. 25. 5. 76 to the Bank's Memo No. 16/62 dt. 17/18. 5. 1976 has not been found satisfactory. He is therefore charge sheeted as under; 1. That on 13. 5. 76 Shri K. M. Gang was working as Teller, in the H. S. S. Department of the Bank's Jalorigate Branch at Jodhpur. 2.That on 13. 5. 1976 Shri K. M. Gang presented to the Branch's Chief Cashier a Credit Voucher along with Cheque No. JDH/hs 108731 dt. 12. 5. 1976 of HSS a/c No. 3112 for being transferred and credited to H. S. S. a/c No. 11676. 3.That the Branch's Chief Cashier, after having entered the voucher and cheque in the relative transfer book, forwarded the vouchers and cheques to Shri K. M. Gang -Teller' for dealing with them. 4.That while working in the aforesaid capacity on that day and in the normal discharge of his duties as Teller, he caused the cheque No. JDH/ 108731 dt. 12. 5 1976 for Rs. 1000/- passed in his H. S. S. a/c. No 3112 for being credited to H. S. S. a/c. No. l1676 in his name jointly with his wife to be operated by either knowing it well that there was no sufficient credit balance in bis said account on that date to meet the cheque in question on presentation. That after having got credited Rs. 1000/- in H. S. S. a/c. No. 11676, Shri K. M. Gang withdraw Rs. 1000/- in cash from the said joint H. S. S. a/c. No. 11676 on 13. 5. 1976 by a withdrawal form. 5.That while passing the relative vouchers Shri K. M. Gang put the rubber stamp 'entered by Teller' and signed the vouchers but he knowingly passed the necessary debit and credit entries in Teller Card of H. S. S. /a/c. No. 3112. 6.That in the evening of 13. 5. 1976 when Shri N. K. Gupta, Sub-accountant was checking the H. S. S. Ledger, he found that there was neither sufficient credit balance at the opening of banking hours on 13. 5. 1976 nor any amount was credited during the day in H. S. S. a/c. No. 3112, to meet the payment of cheque No. 108731 for Rs. 1000/- issued by Shri K. M. Gang. 7.That it has also been discovered that Shri K. M. Gang knowingly passed necessary debit and credit entry for Rs. 1000/- in the Teller Card of H. S. S. a/c. No 3112 which was in his possession when in fact there was no credit voucher in existence. 8.That to get the credit entry made by him in Teller Card on 13. 5. 76, passed through his account No. 3112 on 14. 5. 76 Shri K. M. Gang brought a demand draft for Rs. 1231. 50 along with a paying slip of H. S. S. a/a No. 7415 of Shri R. C. Bhargava as also a back dated letter of Authority for debit-ting Shri Bhargava's said HSS a/c. and affording credit to Shri K. M. Gang's a/c No. 3112. Shri K. M. Gang managed to get entered, without knowledge and permission of the concerned competent officer, the necessary credit and debit voucher on 14. 5. 76 in transfer book No. 2, as of 13. 5. 76 which book is solely meant for entering transfer vouchers pertaining to Loans and Sundry payments and not pertaining to entries of deposit accounts. 9.That Shri K. M. Gang managed to pass the fictitious debit entry of Rs. 1000/- in his own HSS a/c. No. 3112 on 13 5. 76 without there being sufficient balance in the account by a credit transfer entry of Rs. 1000/- in his joint HSS a/c. No. 11676. After making these bogus and unreal entries in the Teller Card of the above said two HSS account being operated by him, he withdrew the amount of Rs. 1000/- from joint HSS a/c. No. 11676 and thus obtained unauthorised and illegal pecuniary gain for himself and put the bank into financial loss. That Shri K. M. Gang committed an act of tempering with the record of the Bank by getting entered on 14. 5. 76 debit and credit vouchers as of 13. 5. 76 without the knowledge and permission of the competent and/ or authorised officer of the concerned department to the prejudice of the interest of the Bank and in utter disregard to his normal duties/functions. The aforesaid actions of Shri K. M. Gang tantamount to 'gross mis- conduct' as per para 19. 5 J. of the Bipartite Settlement dt. 19. 10. 1966. " "shri K. M. Gang. Teller (Under suspension) of Jalorigate Office is hereby informed that he was served with Memo No. DM/legal/76/l-195/ 2341 dt. 26th Nov. l976/28th Dec. 1976 and he was advised to submit his reply to the same. Inspite of reminders he has chosen not to reply to the aforesaid memo. Shri Gang is charge sheeted as under; 1) Shri Gang issued the following cheques/ withdrawals without keeping sufficient balance in his account In one case he discounted the same with the bank to take pecuniary gains. Shri Gang has therefore acted prejudicial to the Bank by so doing; (a) Cheque No. 075234 for Rs. 1000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Cotton Exchange Branch, Bombay given on 1. 1. 76 in H. S. S. a/c. No. 11676. (b) A withdrawal for Rs. 3000/-favouring T. C. Taparia dt. 27. 1. 1976. 2) Shri Gang passed and verified the signatures on the cheques/withdrawal in the following accounts which apparently differ from those on record. a) Withdrawal dt. 28. 1. 76 for Rs. 3000/-drawn by Shri Radhakishan and brought by Shri K. M. Gang. b) Letter of authority to debit Rs. 500/- in HSS a/c. No. 7297 fvg. Kamla R. Mehta. 3) Shri Gang maneavoured fictitious credit in HSS account No. 11676 on 6 5. 76 without any corresponding entry in the books of the Bank and thus fraudulently* withdrawn Rs. 2000/-on the same date from his account. By so doing Shri Gang acted prejudicially to the interest of the Bank. 4) Shri Gang with ulterior motives on 27. 5. 76, closed his account No. 7100 with a balance of Rs. 1. 18 paise only in the teller card but did not pass the necessary slips in the account being closed in the relative ledger. This act of Shri Gang is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. 5) Shri Gang made bogus and fictitious entry in HSS a/c. No. 11679 fvg. Shri Badesh Chand Bhandari whereas the relative debit and credit slips are not existing in the Bank's books. The entry is purported to be in the handwriting of Shri Gang to the captioned HSS account. 6) Shri Gang has been maintaining joint account No. 11674, 11675 and 11676 in name of himself and his minor son and daughters and the perusal of the transactions in this account shows that Shri Gang has been indulging in business and trade outside the scope of his duties. "all the omissions and commissions constitute gross misconduct as defined in para 19. 5 (J) of the first Bipartite Settlement and it has been decided to hold departmental enquiry against Shri K. M. Gang. Shri M. M. Lalla. Chief Officer (Operations) Regional Office. New Delhi has been nominated as Enquiry Officer to hold the above said departmental enquiry. " A perusal of these two charge sheets would show that a person, who is serving in the financial institution like Bank, which requires great amount of confidentiality and if a person act in such an irresponsible manner then the very credit of the Bank will be lost. More so regarding the Teller Account where the Banks act primarily on the basis of bonafide and honesty and honour to a cheque of Rs. 1000/- straightway, if any person of such a character commits this kind of grave mis-conduct then the whole system is likely to fail. In this background we have view the whole matter whether such person should be given the benefit of this extra ordinary jurisdiction or not. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly submitted that the order of punishment as well as the order of appellate authority passed by the respondents are not speaking order therefore these orders should be quashed. I am afraid this submission of the learned counsel is not well founded. In fact order annexure-12 cannot be read in isolation of the order annexure 10, the finding report. The enquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty in the enquiry of the charges and after discussing all the relevant evidence recorded his finding and asked the petitioner as required under para 19. 6 of the Bipartite Settlement that what he has to say regarding proposed punishment of dismissal. The petitioner filed a reply to the finding and the enquiry officer found the petitioner to be guilty of misconduct therefore dismissed the petitioner without notice under para 19. 6 of the Bipartite Settlement. The petitioner was informed by Annexure 13 that a final order of dismissal has been passed by Shri M. M. Lalla against the petitioner without any notice from the Bank's service from the date of the order of the enquiry officer i. e. 15th July, 1979. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner specifically raised objection during the course of enquiry that para 19. 14 has not been complied with as the disciplinary authority has not been designated but no finding on this question has been given by the enquiry officer. I am afraid this submission of the learned counsel has no force. The enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by Shri M. M. Lalla Chief Officer but still the petitioner persisted in his objection that the para 19. 14 has not been complied i. e. the disciplinary authority has not been designated. It is true that the objection was raised by the petitioner but the fact remains that he has no where raised an objection that Shri M. M. Lalla who was conducting his enquiry is a person who is wholly unauthorised. Shri M M. Lalla is a Senior Officer of the Bank and was authorised to conduct the enquiry.
(3.) MR. Bhansali as against this submitted that Shri M. M. Lalla was authorised to hold the enquiry and take disciplinary proceedings. He has produced Ex. R/1 covering letter regarding appointment of enquiry officers in continuation of the other circulars. Ex. R/l is said to have been circulated to all officers and it is further covered by a notice that the name of the officers containing in the list have been appointed as enquiring officers. Name of Shri M. M. Lalla appeared at item No. 40 of this list. MR. MRidul, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the document which has been filed alongwith the reply has not been sworn in properly. He further submitted that such order cannot be said to be valid because the same has not been published and no publication of such has been made. In this connection he has invited my attention to the cases of Ugam Raj Bhandari vs. The State of Rajasthan (5), Col. A. S. Sangwan Vs. Union of India (6) and State of Punjab vs. Amar Singh Harika (7 ). Be that as it may I find that Shri MM. Lalla was duly appointed enquiry officer and disciplinary authority, simply because this was not placed before the enquiry officer will not vitiate the enquiry but this is Bank's circular well known to all officers and simply because it has not been placed properly it cannot be said that it will loose its validity, and court cannot take notice of it. This was issued way back in 1976 and it is not a new innovation of the respondent to defeat the case of the petitioner. Thus the objection of MR. MRidul that this is not properly published or not widely circulated, it will not loose its existence and efficacy. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the copies of the statement of examination in chief of witnesses were not supplied to the petitioner and he was asked to cross examine them. He submitted that he raised this objection but this has not been decided I am afraid this is also not well founded. As is apparent from the petitioner's own pleading in para 7 that he was asked to participate in the enquiry which commenced against Shri O. P. Sharma, who was also charged alongwith the petitioner and it was agreed that the depositions made by the witnesses in the enquiry against Shri O. P. Sharma were common, therefore, it is agreed to take those depositions against petitioner also. Thus a joint enquiry was held and the petitioner was asked to present when the depositions against Shri O. P. Sharma were made and it was agreed that it would be read against the petitioner also, therefore, it was not necessary to supply him the copies of the examination in chief because he was present when examination in chief was going on However,the petitioner was allowed to cross examine these witnesses Thus the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is not open for the petitioner to say that without supplying him the examination in chief he was asked to cross examine the witnesses. Thus this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also without any substance and it is over ruled. Next the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is case of no evidence and in this connection he has cited the case of Jagir Singh Vs. The State of Punjab (8) I am afraid this submission of the learned counsel is also without any basis. Firstly, this is a writ of certiorari and this court cannot sit as a court of appeal to appreciate the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer. ;