TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted during his posting as a Manager of Chundadi branch of the bank during the period 25.3.1996 to 21.6.1997. He replied saying that he was not fully experienced in handling a big branch and in discharging duties as a Branch Manager and the acts of omission and commission were on account of his inexperience. The reply furnished by him was not accepted by the bank and a charge-sheet dated 20.26.4.1999 was issued to him alleging various acts of misconduct committed by him. He submitted his reply dated 2.5.2009 and denied the charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings in his report dated 30.10.2000 holding that D.M. Parmar is guilty of most of the charges. The disciplinary authority thereafter gave an opportunity to D.M Parmar to make a representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer and he submitted his representation. The disciplinary authority granted a personal hearing to him to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of dismissal should not be imposed on him. He appeared before the disciplinary authority and prayed that leniency be showed to him. The disciplinary authority, however, passed an orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to quantum of punishment with the observation that the disciplinary authority may impose any penalty except the penalty of dismissal, removal or termination from service. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the bank filed Letters Patent Appeal No.1736/2005 and D.M. Parmar filed Letters Patent Appeal No.1869/2005. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, however, sustained the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismissed both the appeals. The bank has, therefore, filed C.A. No.2093/2007 and D.M. Parmar has filed C.A. No.2094/2007 before this Court. 6. Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the bank, the appellant in C.A. No.2093/2007, submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer would show that D.M. Parmar was guilty of very serious charges and was required to be dismissed from service on account of acts of integrity and dishonesty and lack of probity on the part of D.M Parmar. He referred to the order of disciplinary authority dated 6.12.2000 to show that disciplinary authority after careful consideration of findings of the Enquiry Officer and the entire records of enquiry had come to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking a prayer that he should be furnished some papers, namely, chargesheet served on his predecessor in office, one L.K. Parmar, information in regard to working and functioning of L.K Parmar in Chundadi branch at the relevant time, copies of inspection report, completion report and rectification certificate issued by the Head Office of the bank during his tenure as the branch manager of Chundadi branch, statement of loans disbursed, crop loan schedules, extracts of land holding, renewal forms and Ikrarnama issued by him, P.S.S. Statement of loan accounts during his tenure and copies of letters written by him requesting the authority to post a second officer in the branch. He submitted that the prayer was not granted by the Enquiry Officer and instead the prayer was opposed by the Presenting Officer on behalf of the bank. He vehemently argued that these documents mentioned in his application dated 3.11.1999 before the Enquiry Officer were relevant for the defence of D.M. Parmar and as these have not been furnished to him, there was violation of principles of natural justice. Mr. Joshi cited the decision of this Court in Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Ors, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the request of D.M. Parmar with regard to the documents he had asked for and he has held that the documents were asked for in connection with the irregularities of L.K. Parmar but these irregularities committed by the earlier officer have no connection with the serious irregularities committed by D.M. Parmar. The Enquiry Officer has further held that if any irregularities were committed by the earlier officer L.K. Parmar, the same have not to be included in the chargesheet issued to D.M. Parmar. Thus, the Enquiry Officer has taken a view, and we think it is a right view, that the documents to show the irregularities committed during the time of the previous manager of the bank L.K. Parmar had no relevance to the charges against D.M. Parmar. As has been held by this Court in Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. (supra) cited by Mr. Joshi, it is not possible to lay down any rigid rules of principles of natural justice which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case but the concept of fair play in action is the basis. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the documents called for by D.M. Parmar during the enquiry have been found by the En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
