Petitioner was again given an opportunity to appear before the companymittee on 3 8 2000 Annexure No.10 to the writ petition to explain his case personally, but he did number appear.
Once the charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner, second charge sheet cannot be sent by the Inquiry Officer in the same disciplinary proceeding.
Aggrieved by the judgment, the Chamoli District Co operative Ltd., is in appeal before this Court.
Further charges were that he had number taken any action against the persons companycerned and had thus companymitted serious irregularities.
Inquiry report dated 21.09.1992 was issued and submitted.
The inquiring officer shall be appointed by the appointing authority or by an officer of the society authorised for the purpose by the appointing authority Provided that the officer at whose instance disciplinary action was started shall number be appointed as an inquiring officer number shall the inquiring officer be the appellate authority.
It is a farce and fraud played on the statutory rights of the petitioner.
Serious objections were raised by the petitioner through his replies dated 31.07.1993, 04.02.1993 and 21.03.1993 but numberheed was given to the objections raised by the petitioner.
It is wrong to allege that records were number made available to the petitioner as the petitioner did number want to refer to any record and he did number make any request even during the companyrse of the cross examination of the witness.
No records or documents which the petitioner has requested to inspect were summon or made available to the petitioner.
The Disciplinary Authority passed a Resolution dated 11.07.2000 that charges against the employee respondent No.1 have been proved and further action to be taken.
Another set of charges were imputation that the respondentemployee has issued overdrafts loans against the provision of the Act.
Even those documents were number inspected or companysidered by the disciplinary authority and inquiry officer.
The Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 01.02.2002, dismissing the employee respondent No.1 with immediate effect.
The employee respondent No.1 submitted a reply on 31.07.1992 denying the allegations.
The letter dated 11.09.1992 and the inquiry report dated 21.09.1992 looses all its importance when the bank decided to issue a fresh charge sheet on 18.11.1993 which includes all earlier charges.
The inquiry report dated 21.09.1992 mentioned that the employee respondent No.1 did number appear, hence the inquiry report was submitted.
The Inquiry Officer also submitted a report on 21.09.1992.
In the companynter affidavit numberinquiry report subsequent to charge sheet dated 18.01.1993 was referred to.
After 18.01.1993 charge sheet reply was submitted by the employee respondent No.1 on 04.02.1993 but there is numbermaterial on the record brought by the appellant Bank indicating that any inquiry proceedings were companyducted.
The Division Bench of the High Court heard the matter and vide judgment dated 01.12.2010 quashed the dismissal order.
The employee respondent No.1 was asked to submit a reply within 15 days.
But this objections was also number companysidered by the Inquiry Officer or disciplinary authority.
The employee respondent No.1s case in the writ petition was that after receipt of the charge sheet dated 18.01.1993, reply was submitted by the employee but without holding an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority took a decision to dismiss the petition.
The employee respondent No.1 submitted a reply dated 04.02.1993 to the charge sheet denying the allegations.
That the disciplinary proceeding held against the petitioner was number companyducted in accordance with the provisions of natural justice and procedure prescribed under the Regulations of 1975.
After the reply dated 04.02.1993 to the charge sheet dated 18.01.1993, numberinquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer.
It is relevant to numbere that in the writ petition filed by the employee respondent No.1, specific averments were made that disciplinary proceedings against him were companyducted in violation of principles of natural justice and against the procedure prescribed in Regulation 85, which averments were made in paragraphs 19 and 25 of the writ petition, to the following effect That since the whole of the procedure adopted in companyducting of the disciplinary proceeding is against the principle of natural justice and procedure mention in regulation 85, In fact, numberinquiry worth to name has been companyducted by the respondents.
Reply to the subsequent charge sheet was again filed by the employee respondent No.1 on 04.02.1993.
The appellant Bank decided to proceed with the Disciplinary Inquiry on the basis of charge sheet dated 18.01.1993.
The so called inquiry was a mere eye wash.
The way the Disciplinary Proceeding were companyducted it companyt serious doubt and aspersion against the respondents.
There was allegation against the employee respondent No.1 that he made payments to the bearers of cheques without its prior companylection and made payment to the bearer of the cheque, causing loss to the appellant Bank.
The employee respondent No.1 was placed under suspension by order dated 21.10.1992.
No further steps were taken on the inquiry report dated 21.09.1992.
Aggrieved by dismissal order, writ petition was filed by the employee respondent No.1 praying for quashing the order dated 01.02.2002 with further prayer that employee respondent No.1 be reinstated in service with full back wages and salary.
The appellant Bank filed a companynter affidavit in the writ petition.
However, a fresh charge sheet companytaining the charges which were levelled in the charge sheet dated 03.07.1992 as well as six additional charges was issued on 16.01.1993.
As numbered above, learned companynsel for the appellant Bank has referred to the letter issued by the Inquiry Officer dated 11.09.1992, calling the employee respondent No.1 to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 18.09.1992.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 21.10.92 and, therefore, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 18.1.93 to which reply was submitted by the petitioner on 4.2.93.
The Raghunath Singh Rana, respondent No.1 hereinafter referred to as the employee Respondent No.1 at the relevant time, was working as a Branch Manager at Ghat Branch of the Chamoli District.
Between 18.01.1993 to 04.05.1993 numberinquiry was held and the petitioner was never called upon to cross examine the witnesses.
Instead of holding the inquiry in accordance with the provisions, the disciplinary authority sent the letter dated 04.05.1993 saying that the charges were proved against the petitioner.
On 05.8.1992, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to companyduct the inquiry.
The short facts necessary for deciding this appeal are the Chamoli District Co operative Bank Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the appellant Bank is a District Co operative Bank registered under the U.P. Co operative Societies Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Further, the petitioner was directed to appear before the companymittee of management in person, but he did number appear at all.
That it is incorrect to say that numberreasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer a letter dated 6 1 93 Annexure No.5 to the writ petition was sent to the petitioner to know whether he wanted to be cross examined by his witnesses, but the petitioner did number want any such opportunity.
However, without proceeding any further on the basis of the inquiry report dated 21.09.1992, a fresh charge sheet dated 18.01.1993 was issued to the employee respondent No.1 companytaining 24 charges.
It appears that before the companyduct of the inquiry the respondents made up their mind to get rid of the petitioner and for that reason they have companyducted the inquiry in such a perfunctory manner, which is number known to services jurisprudence.
Even these documents were number available to the petitioner.
After submission of the reply by the employee respondent No.1, a show cause numberice was issued to the petitioner by the District Co operative Bank Ltd. dated 04.05.1993 asking the employee respondent No.1 to submit a reply, failing which action under Regulation 84 of the U.P. Co operative Societies Employees Service Regulations Act, 1975 was to be taken.
Another opportunity was given as per resolution number14 dated 25.11.1993 which was also number available by him.
Therefore, the order of the respondents dismissing the services of the petitioner is lawful and in the interest of justice and the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
The second charge sheet having been issued on 18.01.1993 which included all the charges which were companytained in the earlier charge sheet, the earlier proceedings companysequent to charge sheet dated 03.07.1992 stood abandoned.
A charge sheet dated 03.07.1992 was issued to the employee leveling 19 charges against him.
The employee respondent No.1 was asked to reply upto 3rd August, 1992.
In the companynter affidavit, the averments made in paragraph 19 and 25 were replied by the appellant Bank in paragraph 18 and 24, which are to the following effect That in reply to the companytents of para number.18 19 of the writ petition it is submitted that the grounds on which the charges issued were found proved was supplied to the petitioner vide letter number251 52 annexure number7 to the writ petition, instead of a companyy of the enquiry report.
The letter of charges serves the purpose of an enquiry report.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.12.2010 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttrakhand by which judgment, the writ petition filed by the respondent Raghunath Singh Rana has been disposed of after quashing the dismissal order dated 01.02.2002.
