Arun Madan, J. - (1.) The short question with which this court has to address itself in the aforesaid writ petition is as to whether the management of Jaipur Nagaun Anchalik Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') was Justified in directing de novo enquiry against the petitioner who is an erstwhile employee of the said bank and whose services were terminated by the bank notwithstanding his exoneration by the enquiry officer in the first enquiry which was initiated against him and thereafter whether the institution of the second enquiry which was directed de novo on the basis of the same charge and allegations consequent upon which he stood exonerated earlier was justified, proper and as such sustainable in the eyes of law
(2.) Brief facts which do arise for consideration of this court are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the services of the respondent-bank as officer on 24.12.1976 and posted as Manager at Shahpura Branch, District Jaipur. In 1981 while he was serving as Manager of Tala Branch of the Bank situated at Tala Tehsil Jumwaramgarh, District Jaipur in the rural area, he had received a communication from the Chairman of the Bank on 20.8.1982 mentioning therein that on the basis of inspection carried by inspecting officer Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma on 16.8.1982, some irregularities were detected regarding the functioning of the said branch. This fact is evident from the perusal of Annexure 1 wherein it is mentioned that the branch was opened at 11.50 a.m. on the day of surprise inspection i.e. 16.8.1982 and it was reported that this was the usual trend of opening the branch after every holiday which was taken as serious matter and for which it was proposed to initiate disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the JNA Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1981 vide Regulation Nos. 22 and 23 of the said regulations. The other allegations against the petitioner were of leaving headquarters without permission of the competent authority, leaving the keys of the branch in possession of the clerk, not maintaining cash abstract books, not writing of cash receipts and cash payment book, consuming 65 paise postage stamp for sending letter to Head office without entering the same in the dispatch register exhausting cash retention limit and mis-utilisation of the loan amount granted to an employee for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- after borrowing the same from an employee of the said bank and returning the same to him after the delay of three months.
(3.) The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid imputations of charge to the enquiry officer denying the alleged irregularities specifically. Thereafter on 6.5.1983 an other communication was issued to the petitioner by the Bank which was marked "confidential" and which was a purported charge-sheet, a detailed reply to which was also submitted by the petitioner to the concerned disciplinary authority. From the perusal of the said charge-sheet it is apparent that it is couched in the same language as the first charge-sheet dated 20.8.1982 and the allegations framed against the petitioner as regards both the chargesheets are pare-ameteria and the same. Thereafter an enquiry officer was appointed by the bank who had earlier made surprise inspection of the petitioner's hank and therefore it is further alleged that the said officer was biased against the petitioner being closely related to the presenting officer in the matter. After holding enquiry in which the petitioner was not allowed even to cross-examine the witness who had deposed against him nor he was allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal. The said enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. It has been further contented that in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, even the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him and as a consequences of which he was deprived of fair opportunity of making representation to the appellate authority. He has further contended that there was no justification to conduct the second enquiry de-novo after dropping the first enquiry in which the petitioner stood fully exonerated of the charge.;