ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 20th July, 1985 (Anx. 7) and the order dated 11th September, 1985 (Anx. 9).
(2.) THE petitioner was served with a letter by the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Sardarpura Branch, Jodhpur dated 19th January, 1983 and he was informed that he dis -obeyed the verbal instructions given to him and has left the Bank premises during the working hours. The petitioner denied these allegations. Thereafter the petitioner was served with the notice dated 28th July, 1983 that why disciplinary action may not be initiated on the basis of the allegations mentioned in the communication dated 28th July, 1983. The petitioner sent his reply to the notice. Thereafter the disciplinary authority appointed Shri T.D. Ojha as Enquiry Officer in terms of paragraph 19.14 of the Bipartite Settlement (here in after referred to as the Settlement). It is alleged that the management did not proceed with the enquiry, therefore, the petitioner was forced to file a writ petition, which came to be registered as S.U. Civil Writ Petition No. 2883 of 1984 challenging the action of the Bank denying him right of consideration during the pendency of the departmental enquiry. During the pendency of this writ petition the enquiry terminated at the level of the disciplinary authority and a penalty of censure was awarded. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank made a statement that in case the petitioner is exonerated in appeal then he will get all consequential benefits. During the enquiry Mr. N.K. Randev was appointed as departmental representative. The petitioner also represented before the management that he may be given permission to represent his case through a legal practitioner or an outsider. During the pendency of this enquiry the departmental representative was changed and Shri S.C. Gattani was appointed as departmental nominee. Meanwhile the enquiry proceeded after number of adjournments for one reason or the other. The petitioner nominated his defence Shri L.N. Bhayal to defend him. Again the enquiry for one reason or the other was adjourned, some time for non -supply of the documents and other time for some other reason. Thereafter on 29th April, 1985 the petitioner was intimated the next date of enquiry i.e. 3rd May, 1985. Mean time the defence nominee of the petitioner Shri Bhayal wrote a letter dated 2nd May, 1985 informing the Enquiry Officer that since his wife fell sick and was hospitalised therefore the enquiry proceedings were deferred. The enquiry proceedings were deferred for 4th May, 1985. The petitioner also made enquiry from his defence nominee Shri Bhayal and he submitted an application that since defence nominee's wife is hospitalised and he is not in a position to proceed with the enquiry, therefore it may be adjourned for one and half months. The enquiry was however deferred for 6th May, 1985 and on 6th May, 1985 the defence nominee of the petitioner appeared and expressed his helplessness, therefore 28th June, 1.985 was next date fixed. Thereafter the date i.e., 26th June, 1985 was postponed and it was advanced to 16th July, 1985 and the petitioner was informed by the telegram which was received by him on 15th July, 1985 that now the next date is 16th July, 1985. It was submitted that the petitioner was on sick leave from 16th July, 1985 to 22nd July, 1985 and in these circumstances he could not appear before the Enquiry Officer on 16th July, 1985 and he could not inform his defence nominee Shri Bhayal. The Enquire Officer instead of adjourning the enquiry proceeded exparte against the petitioner and recorded statements of four witnensses. The petitioner further submits that after receipt of the telegram the petitioner tried to contact his defence nominee but he was not available. The petitioner met Shri T.D. Ojha Enquiry Officer at Punjab National Bank Branch. The petitioner submitted that he told Shri Ojha that he was on sick leave and he submitted medical certificate to Shri Ojha and requested him to adjourn the case, but Shri Ojha declined his request. Thus, Shri Ojha completed the enquiry and submitted his report. Thereafter the petitioner received communication dated 7th June, 1985 along with the copy of the Enquiry Officers report dated 29th May, 1985 and it was also mentioned that a penalty of warning was proposed in terms of para 19.6(b) of the Settlement. The aforesaid show cause notice was replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 18th June, 1985. Thereafter on 20th July, 1985 a penalty of recorded warning was issued to the petitioner. Against the aforesaid punishment the petitioner filed an appeal with the appellate authority and the appellate authority also dismissed the petitioner's appeal by the order dated 11th September, 1985. In these circumstances the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) A reply has been filed by the management denying all the allegations made by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner deliberately wanted to delay the enquiry. It has been submitted that it is true that a longer date was fixed i.e. 28th June, 1986 on account of illness of wife of the defence nominee, but on enquiry it was found that defence nominee himself has gone out and plea of his wife's illness was not genuine cause for seeking adjournment. It also come to the light that the petitioner also asked for leave fair concession and wanted to proceed to avail the same. Thus, the ground on which the adjournment was sought was not genuine one therefore the date was changed from 28th June, 1985 to 16the May, 1985 and the petitioner was intimated of this change. The petitioner actually came to Sardarpura Branch on 15th May, 1985. Thereafter on 16th May, 1986 the petitioner applied for leavy. Thereafter on 17th May, 1985 the petitioner came in the Branch office and gave a letter that he is proceeding on leave fair concession. He was very much in the Bank premises on 16th May. 1985 and 17th May, 1985 and he did not attend the enquiry proceedings. Affidavit of Shri P.D. Ojha, Administrative Officer, who was enquiry officer in the case of the petitioner has also been filed on record. He has deposed that 9th December, 1983 was fixed for proceeding with the enquiry and it was adjourned at the request of the petitioner. Again on subsequent date the petitioner made a request for adjournment. It was also deposed that long date for 28th June, 1985 was fixed on the request of Shri Bhayal, defence nominee of the petitioner due to the fact that his wife was hospitalised and it was submitted that he has to remain most of the time in the hospital with his wife. But later on it was found that this was not correct and most of the time he was out of Jodhpur. Then the fact of petitioner's leave fair concession was brought to his notice. He has further deposed that he did not meet the petitioner in the Punjab National Bank or any where else. He has denied the allegation of any pressure what so ever on him. He has deposed that on 16th May, 1985 when he was conducting the enquiry the petitioner did come to Sardarpura Branch but he did not join the enquiry. On 17th May, 1985 also he was very much there in the Branch. On 16th May, 1985 before starting the enquiry he made an enquiry from the Branch Manager that any application was moved by the petitioner for adjourning the enquiry and he was informed that no such request has been received. In these circumstances he proceeded with the enquiry and submitted enquiry report.;