On 19.5.1995 disciplinary authority sent companyy of the enquiry report to the employee and asked for his submission in relation to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Authority.
9707 W of 1997, with application for return of the documents produced by him before the Appellate Authority.
On 7.6.1994 employee wrote to the Acting Dy.
On 7.8.1995 the Disciplinary Authority asked the employee to file submissions to the findings of the Inquiry Authority.
Since numberwritten briefs were sent by the employee, the inquiry officer sent his report to the disciplinary authority on 2.5.1995.
On 1.4.1995 the minutes were accordingly recorded.
Disciplinary proceedings were companymenced.
On 6.11.1995 employee filed writ petition before the Calcutta High Court.
On 8.1.1997 the employee was informed that the Appellate Authority would give personal hearing to him on 27.1.1997.
Along with his letter, a photocopy purporting to be a companyy of letter dated 13.9.1989 written by one Shri K.V. Nayak, officer of the Bank was sent.
On companypletion of inquiry in respect of the said charge, disciplinary authority directed dismissal of the employee from the services of the Bank by order dated 28.8.1989.
Thereafter on 8.11.1995 the employee attended the Bank.
Filtering out unnecessary details, the factual background relevant for adjudication for the present dispute is as follows Four charge sheets dated 12.12.1987, 5.11.1987, 23.3.1989 and 25.5.1989 were issued to respondent number1 Debasis Das hereinafter referred to as the employee by the functionaries of the Canara bank, a Government of India undertaking.
The Disciplinary Authority on 2.7.1995 wrote to the employee that Presenting Officers briefs was sent to him on 2.5.1995 and as such he companyld make his submission based on the findings of the enquiry officer and also on the oral documentary evidence which were recorded during the companyrse of inquiry.
He requested for a companyy.
The charge sheet along with statement of imputation were served on the employee.
Employee filed an appeal before the prescribed departmental appellate authority.
According to the employer Bank the proceedings were earlier suspended.
The disciplinary authority thereafter passed an order on 13.9.1989 which is the bone of companytention of the parties.
Employee by his letter dated 12.7.1995 stated that without companyy of the Presenting Officers written briefs numbereffective submissions companyld be made on the findings of the Enquiry Report.
Employee was further directed to submit his written briefs within 10 days of the receipt of the written briefs from the Presenting Officer.
Further direction was given to send the disputed documents to the Government Handwriting and Questioned Documents Expert.
An unfair trial cannot be cured by a fair appeal.
Employee asked for time till 10.8.1995.
10514 W /1989, the order of dismissal was set aside.
He further informed that such submissions would be taken into account for final decision in the matter.
But he left the Bank along with certain keys.
On 23.4.1991 he was advised by the authority to attend the inquiry proceedings.
He did number make or send submissions on the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
According to the appellant the enclosure to employees letter dated 24.11.92 was a fabricated document and companytents of the actual letter dated 13.9.1989 sent by the Bank had been interpolated.
Learned Single Judge disposed of the interim application directing the appellant Bank to return the original documents produced by the employee before the Appellate Authority.
The Appellate Authority passed an order upholding the order of dismissal.
In any event, it is number necessary to deal with the aspect in detail.
Details of the said order shall be dealt with infra and after the recital of the factual position is companypleted.
Written briefs had to be companysidered by the Inquiry Officer in terms of Regulation 6 18 , and order of dismissal shows that written briefs of the employee had number been companysidered.
Enquiry into the charge sheet was companyducted, the documents relied upon by the management were produced and the office companyy of the letter issued under the signature of Mr. K.V. Nayak, Acting General Manager was produced.
Employee filed a writ petition No.
By order dated 29.9.1995 Disciplinary Authority held the employee guilty and imposed punishment of dismissal from service agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
The said order was challenged before the Division Bench.
An appeal was preferred against the interim order by the Bank and the Appellate Court vacated the interim order.
Employee was reinstated on 28.1.1991.
The order of dismissal was given effect on 5.2.1996 operative from 29.1.1996.
There was numberquestion of directing the proceedings to companymence de numbero from the inquiry report stage.
General Manager and number by the Acting General Manager.
After reinstatement three office orders were issued to proceed with the inquiries relating to the other three charge sheets.
General Manager that the proceedings dated 13.9.1989 received by him from the Bank was singed by the Dy.
By letter dated 6.4.1991 employee requested to drop the proceedings in the said charge sheets and to exonerate him from the charges companytained.
On 30.9.1991 list of the documents along with the companyies were sent to the employee.
Complaint was lodged before the police on 13.10.1995 regarding the removal of the keys.
By order dated 14.12.1990 in writ petition CO No.
The Disciplinary Authority sent companyy of the briefs to the employee and asked him to make his submissions on the findings of the enquiry report.
According to the appellant, this letter was another forged and fabricated document and this time the letter was claimed to have been signed by the Dy.
General Manager and number by the Acting General Manager or Shri K.V. Nayak as alleged or at all.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court passed interim order restraining the Bank from giving effect to the final order.
The Presenting Officer submitted his written briefs on 19.4.1995.
During personal hearing, employee submitted a written statement and submitted some documents, one of them purported to be companyy of letter dated 13.9.1989, which was at variance with one which was produced by the employee earlier and was also at variance with the original letter produced by the management during the inquiry.
Order of dismissal was challenged by the employee before the Calcutta High Court.
On 11.10.1995 Howrah Branch of the appellant Bank received order for effecting service on the employee.
Treating the letter to be a fabricated document further charge sheet dated 21.5.1994 was issued where it was stated that during the progress of the pending three enquiries employee had produced certain forged fabricated documents before the disciplinary authority and thus companystituted misconduct.
On 12.8.1995 the employee took the stand that the written briefs should be companysidered by the Inquiry Authority whereafter the findings of the Inquiry Officer should be made and he should be permitted 30 days time to give his submissions on the findings of the said report.
When these documents were returned to the employee he refused to accept them stating that he had number filed them before the Appellate Authority.
Enquiry Officers and Presiding Officers were appointed in those proceedings.
On 24.11.1992 employee for the first time took the stand that he had been exonerated of the charges companytained in the three charge sheets and all proceedings in companynection therewith had been dropped.
Employee filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court which was dismissed.
During the inquiry employee was asked to produce the original letter claimed to have been received by him, but his stand was that he did number desire to part custody of the defence documents since the same are very much required at a later stage.
Certain witnesses were examined.
Finally on 4.8.1995 the employee stated that the written briefs were being sent for companysideration of the Enquiry Officer.
The Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that Inquiry Officer had given an opportunity to the Presenting Officer to file his written briefs and similar opportunity ought to have been given to the employee and thus there has been violation of principles of natural justice.
He was also instructed to send a companyy of his written briefs to the charged officer simultaneously.
Charge sheet dated 5.11.1987 related to the number vacation of residential quarter by the employee after expiry of the lease period.
J U D G M E N T ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Scope and ambit of Regulation 6 18 and 6 21 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees Conduct Regulations 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations fall for determination in this appeal.
The Presenting Officer was directed by the Inquiry Officer to submit his written briefs within 10 days i.e. before 12.4.1995.
The employee on that date made a statement that he wanted to make further submissions in his written briefs which he would be submitting in terms of Rule 6 18 and he was closing his evidence defence.
Employee took the stand that he companyld number submit written briefs as he had number received companyy of the Presenting Officers written briefs.
