The Appellate Court, however, granted liberty to the Bank to institute a fresh departmental enquiry with the stipulation that the liberty must be exercised within two months.
Even statement of allegations had number been furnished to him ii a companyy of the enquiry report was also number made available to Grover before the order of removal was passed iii the Disciplinary Authority had number applied its mind, before passing the order of punishment and it merely agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and iv the Appellate Authority had also dismissed the Departmental Appeal without giving any reason.
The Bank then filed a second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed in limine.
A learned Single Judge of the Court who tried the suit found that numberparticulars and other necessary details were given in the charges and they were vague resulting in number compliance with Rule 55 of the Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules and that the necessary particulars were number supplied in spite of repeated objections of the appellant to the charges being vague and indefinite.
The appeal preferred by the Bank against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur and the above findings were affirmed.
Hence these two appeals, one at the instance of the Bank and the other by Grover.
As regards the finding of the trial Court that numberdefinite and distinct charge had been framed against Grover and even statement of allegations had number been furnished as required under Rule 68 of the Regulations, Mr. Ahmad companytended that the enquiry was number and companyld number have been held under the said Regulations as they came into effect on and from April 30, 1980 that is, after the proceeding against Grover was initiated.
Grover also preferred a second appeal assailing the liberty granted to the Bank to hold a fresh enquiry which was also dismissed.
Without companyplying with his such request the Disciplinary Authority companytinued with the enquiry proceeding and ultimately he was removed from service.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8739 OF 1995 arising out of S.L.P. C NO.10790 of 1992 Prabhu Dayal Grover Versus State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur Ors.
In appeal the Division Bench set aside the findings of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the suit but granted a certificate to move this Court.
J U D G M E N T K. MUKHERJEE, J. Leave granted.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
On the above and other findings the learned Single Judge decreed the suit of the appellant.
The trial Court decreed the suit with the following findings i the provisions of Regulation 68 2 iii of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Officers Service Regulations 1979 Regulations for short , which governed the departmental enquiry had been violated in as much numberdefinite and distinct charges had been framed against the plaintiff Grover and he had been punished on the basis of a show cause numberice only.
Aggrieved thereby he filed a suit in the High Court and in paragraph 19 of the plaint he specifically alleged that the enquiry was vitiated because under the rules and procedure for holding such an enquiry he was entitled to be furnished with definite charges but the charges and allegations made against him were vague, indefinite and lacking in material particulars and in spite of repeated requests those were neither made specific number material particulars like date, time, place and persons were supplied.
While working as the Manager of the Ridmalsar Branch of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Bank for short , Prabhu Dayal Grover Groverfor short was proceeded against departmentally for accepting bribe from one Maniram and removed from service on May 27, 1983.
As the appeal preferred by him before the Executive Committee of the Bank proved abortive he instituted a civil suit in the Additional Court of the Munsif at Jaipur for a declaration that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were illegal and void and for companysequential reliefs.
