- (1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 03.08.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. NO. 3989/1999(R) whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) The appellant/writ petitioner has averred, in the aforesaid writ petition, that he was appointed on the post of Assistant Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper on 11.12.1980 and he was posted in Gumla Branch of UCO Bank; that in the month of June 1981 he was transferred to B.I.T. Mesra Branch of the said Bank and he was promoted to the post of Head Cashier in the year 1982 and was transferred to Nandlalpur Branch in the district of Bhagalpur; that in the year 1986 he was promoted to the post of Chief Cashier and in the year 1987 he was redesignated to the post of Assistant Manager (Cash), thereafter, he was posted at Bermo Branch. Thereafter in the month of October 1994 he was transferred to B.I.T. Mesra Branch where he joined as Assistant Manager (Cash); that by office order dated 14.09.1995 issued by Zonal Manager he was placed under suspension under the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 on the allegation of fraud, and misappropriation of the fund of Bank during his tenure as Assistant Manager (Cash) in Bermo Branch. Being aggrieved by the order of suspension the appellant preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2983/1996(R) and the said case was disposed of by order dated 18.02.1997 on the ground that order of suspension had been revoked during the pendency of the writ petition with an observation that the appellant would be entitled to get all the benefits. It is stated that Memo No. BJO/VIG./MISC/109/96/26(R) dated 09.09.1996, the Zonal Manager issued a charge-sheet containing the charges of allegation that the appellant had received various amounts aggregating Rs. 28,085/- from locker hirers on different dates but he did not make the entry of the said amount in the Books of Accounts of the Bank and he allegedly mis-appropriated the aforesaid amount thereby causing wrongful loss to the Bank. It was also alleged that in complete violation of the Bank's rules and procedures he has issued acknowledgments of receipts of cash in an irregular manner to the locker hirers and made corresponding entries in the locker rent receipts register for the amount retained by him. On receiving the charge-sheet the appellant/writ petitioner by letters dated 29.10.1996 and 10.12.1996 requested the Zonal Manager, Patna to provide him the copies of the document but the authorities did not entertain his request and copies of the documents were not supplied to him. Thereafter departmental enquiry was conducted and the report of the enquiry was submitted on 13.07.1998 and by letter under Memo No. BZO/VIG./Misc/98-99/175 dated 05.11.1998 the Deputy General Manager posing himself as the Disciplinary Authority served a copy of punishment order on the appellant dated 05.11.1998 which was received by the appellant on 12.11.1998 whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement from service along with the order of recovery of Rs. 28,085/- was passed against the appellant. On receipt of the said punishment order the appellant preferred an appeal before the General Manager (Operation-II) of the Bank on 24.11.1998 and the same was dismissed on 16.09.1999. Thus, being aggrieved the appellant had filed aforesaid writ petition the order of which has been impugned herein.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned order, has contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate and consider the question namely, whether the service of enquiry report is mandatory and whether the appellate authority, while deciding the appeal, requires to consider the grounds taken by the appellant in the Memo of Appeal and pass reasoned order on the said grounds. It has been submitted that the appellant had demanded the copies of rent receipt register, receipt issued by the appellant, locker register of the locker hirers as well as enquiry report but the same were not provided to him. It has been argued that the persons who had made complaint against the appellant have not been examined in the enquiry proceedings resultantly the appellant has been deprived of the opportunity of cross-examination so as to disprove the allegation that they had given the money to the appellant. In support of the contention learned counsel has relied on the decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 2 SCC 772and referred to para 28 of the said judgment and submitted that since no witnesses were examined and documents have not been proved, then the same could not be taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. He has also placed reliance on paras 29 and 30 of the aforesaid judgment and submitted that it has been held by the Supreme Court that departmental enquiry has to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice which provides for giving a reasonable opportunity to the employee to be heard and the object of the rule of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in a proceeding which culminates in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the charge-sheeted employee had been denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry, accordingly, it set aside the punishment order. It is urged that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the facts of the aforesaid judgment.;