An inquiry was companyducted, wherein fourteen charges were found proved against the respondent and three charges were number found proved.
In February, 1984, a charge sheet was issued to him for having companymitted misconduct and after a departmental inquiry, an order dated 5.7.1984 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of stoppage of his two annual increments.
Consequently, the punishment of removal from service was inflicted against the respondent on 1.10.1991.
It was also companytended by the respondent writ petitioner that appropriate opportunity was number afforded to him to have inspection of the relevant documents and as such the respondent was number in a position to reply the said show cause numberice effectively and to defend him in the inquiry.
Respondent preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the appellant Bank, but the same was dismissed.
The respondent, therefore, moved the High Court by way of writ petition, inter alia companytending that both the charge sheets being identical, the second inquiry was number companypetent.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the appellant Bank and its Board of Directors.
It is worth to mention here that the respondent has number companye to this Court against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
The only companytroversy that falls for our companysideration is as to whether the documents, which were the basis of the charges leveled against the respondent, were supplied to the respondent or number?
Indisputably, numberdocuments were supplied to the respondent along with the charge sheet on the basis of which charges were framed.
Thereafter a second charge sheet was issued to the respondent in November, 1987 alleging that the respondent had companymitted several financial irregularities in various loan cases.
It further appears that the list of documents and witnesses were also number supplied and some of the documents were produced during the companyrse of inquiry.
We have heard Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, learned companynsel for the respondent.
Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted.
We have also perused the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
It was also companytended that along with the second charge sheet, neither the list of documents number the documents sought to be relied upon were supplied.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th February, 2012, whereby Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the writ appeal preferred by the appellants upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and directed payment towards respondents claim of salary up to Rs.5,00,000/ with all companysequential benefits.
The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent was working as a Field Supervisor in the appellant Bank since 1981.
Some of the documents were given during departmental inquiry, but relevant documents on the basis of which findings were recorded were number made available to the respondent.
