S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. - (1.) The appellant -Abhay Kumar Sinha, an employee of Allahabad Bank, was proceeded departmentally and on the basis of enquiry report, he was dismissed from service on 20th January, 1990. The appeal preferred by him was also rejected on 14th September, 1990. The learned single Judge having not interfered with the order of dismissal and appeal and having merely allowed the appellant to prefer a review application, vide judgment dated 31st January, 1997 in CWJC No. 690 of 1995 (R), the present appeal has been preferred.
(2.) The manner in which the appellant was proceeded departmentally by Allahabad Bank and was punished will speak in itself the legality and propriety of the proceeding and punishment imposed on him. The appellant was an employee of the United Industrial Bank Ltd., a private Bank which merged with the Allahabad Bank, w.e.f. 31st October, 1989. The proceeding seems to have been initiated while the appellant was in the United Industrial Bank Ltd. After merger, on 18th December, 1989, the disciplinary authority decided to hold enquiry himself. The next day, i.e. on 19th December, 1989, he decided and appointed one R.D. Upadhaya as Enquiry Officer. On 21st December, 1989, notice was issued to appellant to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 27th December, 1989. The disciplinary authority having no knowledge where the appellant was posted, issued three notices on 21st December, 1989; one to his defence lawyer at Calcutta; the second to the appellant with address at Nagpur and the third to the appellant showing address at Hazaribagh. Nothing on the record to suggest service of any of the notice on the appellant. The enquiry held for three days, i.e. on 27th, 28th and 29th December, 1989, enquiry report submitted on the 4th day and the appellant was punished on 20th January, 1990. Everything completed within a week to ten days.
(3.) The counsel for the Allahabad Bank submitted that the aforesaid facts or violation of any rule or rules of natural justice should not be taken into account in this appeal as the appellant is not permitted to raise those issues, being barred by the principle of res judicata. It was submitted that violation of any and every procedural provision cannot automatically vitiate the enquiry or the order unless it occasions prejudice to the delinquent. Reliance, in this regard, was placed on Patna High Court decision in Arvind Kumar Ranjan v/s. Nalanda Gramin Bank, reported in, 2001 (1) BBCJ 355. Reliance was also placed on Supreme Court decision in State Bank of Patiala v/s. S.K. Sharma, reported in . In that case, the Supreme Court held that in a case of procedural provision which is not a mandatory character, the complain of violation has to be examined in case it prejudiced to the delinquent employee. The learned counsel also placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in the case of Managing Director, E.C.I.L. v/s. B. Karunakar, reported in , to suggest that there was no necessity to furnish the copy of enquiry report to the charged employee, the order of punishment having issued prior to cut -off date, i.e. prior to the decision of Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramjan Khan's case, reported in .;