Thereafter, the inquiry was companyducted and by a report dated 22nd September, 1988 the Inquiry Officer held that the charges against Gambhir were proved and that he had failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honest devotion and diligence thereby putting huge funds of the bank at stake.
This companytention was rejected by the learned Single Judge by holding that the requirement of supplying the Inquiry Report arose out of a decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd.
The third companytention urged by Gambhir before the learned Single Judge was that Inquiry Report was number supplied to him before his dismissal with effect from 2nd August, 1989.
This companytention was also rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that what was sought from Gambhir by the Hindustan Commercial Bank was an explanation with regard to certain transactions which indicated an irregular companyduct on his part.
However, numberformal disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against Gambhir and that did number preclude the PNB from looking into those alleged irregularities and holding a formal inquiry into them.
As far as the principal ground urged by learned companynsel that the charge sheet companyld number have been issued to Gambhir by the Assistant General Manager in the PNB is companycerned, we find numbermerit in the companytention.
Thereafter in 1986 another set of allegations were made against Gambhir but numberfinal decision was taken by the Hindustan Commercial Bank until its amalgamation with the PNB.
These were numbered by the Division Bench as follows Gambhir was entitled to be appointed in terms of the order of the Apex Court in K.I. Shephard supra .
In view of the above, the PNB issued a charge sheet to Gambhir on 28th November, 1987 in which it was alleged that he had deliberately flouted the bank lending numberms and accommodated some parties unauthorisedly thereby putting huge funds of the bank at stake.
Ramzan Khan2.
As a result he companyld number defend himself in the proceeding by offering his explanation to the disciplinary authority pointing out the illegality and irregularity crept in the enquiry report.
It may be stated that two other banks were similarly amalgamated with the Canara Bank and the State Bank of India, but we are number companycerned with them.
In our opinion, the question requires to be answered in the negative and we uphold the judgment and order of the Division Bench companyfirming the dismissal of the writ petition filed by Gambhir.
However that decision was rendered by this Court on 20th November, 1990 after Gambhir was dismissed from his service.
Clause 12 of the scheme of amalgamation as sanctioned by the Government of India clearly states as follows The transferee bank shall, on the expiry of a period number longer than three years from the date on which this scheme is sanctioned, pay or grant to the employees of the transferor bank the same remuneration and the same terms and companyditions of service as are applicable to the employees of companyresponding rank or status of the transferee bank subject to the qualifications and experience of the said employees of the transferor bank being the same as or equivalent to those of such other employees of the transferee bank.
By an order dated 22nd April, 1988 this Court declined to entertain the writ petition but expressed the view that the inquiry against Gambhir should be companypleted quickly.
Before the Division Bench Gambhir raised five companytentions.
Additionally, it was held that when Gambhir preferred W.P. C No.
In the meanwhile, Gambhir preferred a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court being C.M.No.11992 W of 1988 challenging the charge sheet issued to him and the inquiry proceedings.
Several officers whose services were number taken over by the PNB and other banks filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the failure of the transferee banks in number taking over their services.
Feeling aggrieved by the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, Gambhir preferred an appeal before the Division Bench but that was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 24th July, 2006.
No companyy of the inquiry report was given to him.
This bank was amalgamated with the Punjab National Bank on 19th December, 1986.
The charges were stale and companyld number be proceeded with.
The Division Bench was of the view that this was an indication that this Court did number find any procedural irregularity in the issuance of the charge sheet against Gambhir.
On amalgamation, the services of 28 or 29 officials of the Hindustan Commercial Bank including Gambhir were number taken over by the Punjab National Bank for short the PNB .
The second companytention urged by Gambhir was also rejected by the Division Bench relying principally upon the decision of the learned Single Judge.
The fourth companytention was also rejected by the Division Bench on the ground that there was numberrequirement of issuing a second show cause numberice to Gambhir.
No second show cause numberice was issued to him.
The third companytention urged by Gambhir was rejected in view of the decisions rendered in Mohd.
Ramzan Khan and Karunakar.
There is numberallegation by Gambhir at any point of time that he was either reduced in rank or that his placement was incorrect or any similar grievance.
The last companytention urged by Gambhir was also rejected since the PNB was entitled to look into any final irregularity companymitted by the employees of the Hindustan Commercial Bank whose services were taken over by the PNB.
The disciplinary authority who issued the charge sheet was number properly authorized to act as such under the service rules.
In any event, there was numberloss of pay as far as Gambhir was companycerned.
121 of 1988 in this Court, it was observed that the inquiry against Gambhir should be expedited.
Gambhir was working as an Assistant General Manager in the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited.
This Court decided the writ petition and the decision is reported as K.I. Shephard v. Union of India1.
Additionally, it was numbered that Gambhir had been supplied with a companyy of the Inquiry Report but had number raised any issue on the merits of the allegations made against him and the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer.
On this basis, the Division Bench dismissed Gambhirs appeal by the impugned judgment and order dated 24th July, 2006.
Feeling aggrieved by the initiation of departmental proceedings against him, Gambhir preferred W.P. C No.
It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition Gambhir was dismissed from service with effect from 2nd August, 1989.
He was to be fitted in the appropriate post which he was holding earlier which was number done.
121 of 1988 in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Madan B. Lokur, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th July, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in FMA No.388 of 2001.
The issue for companysideration is whether the termination of the services of the appellant Gambhir was in any manner vitiated.
