Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 473 (JHR)

Vinod G. Kohale v. Allahabad Bank

2010-04-15

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2010
JUDGMENT The petitioner was posted as an Electronic Data Processing Officer in the Dhanbad Branch of Allahabad Bank. He was served with a notice to show cause as contained in Annexure1 dated 30.01.2003 which is quoted herein below: "On date, during the posting of cheque returned through clearing, it was found that an entry of Rs.3,188/(Rupees three thousand one hundred eighty eight) only in G.L. Head (H.O. Clearing relating to C.B.C. No. 961 dated 17.01.2003 of Mohnajpur Branch) is credited in Saving Bank Account No. 8462 in the name of Manoj Kumar Singh with Rs.63,188/ (Rupees Sixty Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty Eight) only. The matter was brought to you by the officials of the Branch for clarification in your Server Room and you corrected the entry without satisfying the said query as to how the error occurred and how you corrected the same. Soon after when we tried to find out the relativeness of the said error, surprisingly, it is noted that the details of the aforesaid S.B. Account is not available in the computer. In course of search, it was found that a sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only has been withdrawn on 29.01.2003 vide Cheque No. 765597 dated 25.01.2003 signed by the A/C holder." The petitioner submitted his reply but the same was not found to be satisfactory and accordingly, the petitioner was put under suspension and, thereafter, by issue of Annexure4 dated 18.06.2003, he was asked to submit his reply to the allegations made therein to the show cause notice The petitioner filed reply but the same again was not found satisfactory and then, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for the charges as contained in Annexure6 to this writ petition. The charges stated in Annexure6, are quoted herein below: "While working and functioning as EDP Officer at the Bank's Dhanbad Main Branch from 12.01.2000 to 01.02.2003, Shri v. G. Kohale committed several acts of omission and commission. Accordingly, Show Cause notice was isued to him vide Letter No. ROR/ VIG/203/2003 dated 18.06.2003 Shri V.G. Kohale submitted his reply of the Show Cause notice vide his letter dated 04.07.2003. The undersigned is not satisfied with the reply submitted by Shri V.G. Kohale and proposes to hold a departmental enquiry against Shri V.G. Kohale, Ex EDP Officer, Dhanbad, Main Branch under Regulation 6 of Allahabad Bank Officer, Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. The undersigned is not satisfied with the reply submitted by Shri V.G. Kohale and proposes to hold a departmental enquiry against Shri V.G. Kohale, Ex EDP Officer, Dhanbad, Main Branch under Regulation 6 of Allahabad Bank Officer, Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. The instance of imputation of misconduct in respect of which the Enquiry is proposed to held is set out in the enclosed statement of Article of Charges (Annexure1). A statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the Article of Charges is also enclosed (Annexure II). A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the Article of Charges framed against Shri V.G. Kohale are proposed to substantiated are also enclosed as Annexure III & IV respectively." It appears that pursuant to the requests made by the petitioner, one Dilip Kumar, Senior Manager, Madhubani was allowed to act as a Defense Assistant on behalf of the petitioner in the departmental proceedings. The grievance of the petitioner is that the departmental proceeding proceeded against the petitioner in absence of his defense assistant who could not appear on 03.01.2005. The petitioner was also not even given an opportunity to inspect the documents. Though the petitioner sought for an adjournment on the ground of non availability of his defence assistant but the same was rejected and even the adjournment on medical ground of the petitioner was also not allowed and the management, in haste, concluded the departmental inquiry within 12 (twelve) days i.e. in between 03.01.2005 to 15.01.2005 and, thereafter, the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 31.03.2005 vide Annexure14. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an Appeal before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed by order as contained in Annexure15 to the writ petition. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenged the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself and, therefore, the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same were liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Mrs. On the other hand, Mrs. Anubha Rawat Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, by referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank as well as Annexure thereto, submitted that the entire copy of the departmental proceedings from beginning to end, has been annexed with the counter affidavit in order to show and establish that the necessary official instructions were issued to the defence Assistant to participate in the departmental proceedings but he did not report to the enquiry for which the enquiry proceeding had to be adjourned by the enquiry officer for two consecutive dates. The defense Assistant was also relieved from the Branch well in time for attending the enquiry but he did not attend. When the defence assistant failed to appear, the enquiry officer asked the petitioner to participate in the enquiry by giving him an opportunity to defend himself but the petitioner did not turn up and he left appearing in the proceeding rather he abandoned the departmental proceeding pending before the enquiry officer. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was given full opportunity to appear in the enquiry proceeding but he did not bother to turn up and these facts clearly established that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, he failed to avail the said opportunity and in fact he abandoned the departmental proceeding and, therefore, the enquiry officer had no alternative but to conclude the proceedings on the basis of the materials on record. After going through the copy of the proceedings for the departmental enquiry annexed with the counter affidavit, I am inclined to accept the submissions made by Mrs. Anubha Rawat Choudhary that the petitioner was given full and sufficient opportunity to defend himself and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. No other point has been urged on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, having found no merits, this writ petition is dismissed.