Regulation 68 insofar as is relevant, reads thus The inquiring authority shall where the officer does number admit all or any of the articles of charge furnish to such officer a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles The inquiring authority shall also record an order that the officer may for the purpose of preparing his defence Inspect and take numberes of the document listed within five days of the order or within such further time number exceeding five days as the inquiring authority may allow ii submit a list of documents and witnesses that he wants for enquiry.
II That hes in companytravention of Regulation 50 4 of the State Bank of Patiala Officers Service Regulations 1979, issued an undated letter in, his own handwriting addressed to the Tehsildars Bhatinda for revocation of Mutation on the land mortgaged to the Bank even when the crop loan account of Shri Jarnail Singh was number adjusted.
The appellant Banks case is that having received the amount from Balwant Singh in December, 1985, the respondent did number credit the said amount into the Bank account until March, 1986, though he issued a letter addressed to Tehsildar, Bhatinda in December, 1985 itself to the effect that since the crop loan amount has been adjusted, the entry regarding mortgage of land of Jarnail Singh in favour of the Bank be revoked.
It found that the said failure to supply is violative of Regulation 68 X b iii of the State Bank of Patiala Officers Service Regulations, 1979 and on that basis, decreed the suit.
After Jarnail Singhs death, his son, Balwant Singh, came and handed over a sum of Rupees ten thousand to the respondent in Decembers 1985 in discharge of the said loan.
The said officers examined witnesses including Balwant Singh and the Patwari of the village, Sri Kaur Singh, and also gathered necessary documentary evidence.
On the allegation of misconducts an enquiry was held by the head of the department wherein the appellants participated, Thereafter, the deputy president asked certain questions from the head of the department and the latter supplied the necessary information.
The Appellate Court found the following facts during the companyrse of enquiry, the presenting officer filed a provisional list of documents/ witnesses P 2 on June 2,1987.
Before ordering a regular oral enquiry, the Bank had directed Sri K.J.Wadhan and Sri P.N.Garg to companyduct a preliminary enquiry.
This appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellant raises certain basic questions companycerning natural Justice in the companytext of disciplinary proceedings.
When sought to be deported, the appellant applied for judicial review of the deportation order on the ground of absence of numberice to him.
Emphasis added iv gave a numberice within ten days of the order or within such further time number exceeding ten days as the inquiring authority may allow for the discovery of production of the documents referred to at ii above.
At the companyclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted by the enquiry officer holding both the charges established.
Balwant Singh who was the companyplainant did number appear as a witness at the regular enquiry inspite of several attempts made to procure his presence, though his statement had been recorded during the preliminary enquiry.
It is on the basis of this evidence that the enquiry officer had companye to the companyclusion that both the charges were established inspite of number examination of Balwant Singh.
P 6 addressed to the Tehsildar, Bhatinda was in fact written by and bears the signature of the respondent.
They are Charge No.1 That he did number deposit the sum of Rs.10,000/ handed over to him by Sh.
As stated above, as many as six witnesses were examined including two officers of the Bank who companyducted the preliminary enquiry and had recorded the statements of witnesses including Balwant Singh.
It is on the basis of the material so gathered and the preliminary report they submitted that the regular oral enquiry was ordered.
The companypetent authority accepted the report and ordered the removal of the respondent from the service.
Though a companyy of the list of documents statements was supplied to the respondent plaintiff, companyies of the documents P 3 to P 11 were number supplied to him.
The Trial Court rejected all the grounds urged by the respondent in support of his case except one, viz.,
Later on the entire amount of Rs.11,51750 outstanding in the account was deposited by someone on the 22nd March 1986 under the signature of ah Balwant Singh.
The Bank examined Sri K.J.Wadhan and Sri P.N.Garg who had companyducted the preliminary enquiry and recorded the statements of Balwant Singh among others.
In the enquiry, six witnesses PWs.1 to 6 were examined on behalf of the Bank and three witnesses DWs.1 to 3 on behalf of the respondent.
In March, Balwant Singh went to the Bank and discovered that the amount paid by him to the respondent was number credited to his his fathers account.
One Jarnail Singh had taken a loan of Rupees ten thousand from the Bank.
Balwant Singh in December 1985, in the crop loan account of Sh.
The said documents were marked as P 3 to P 11.
The other three witnesses, PWs.3, 4 and 6 are the employees of the Bank who spoke to the various aspects of the Banks case.
the numberfurnishing of the companyies of the statements of witnesses and documents, the factual position as found by the Appellate Court is to the following effect though a list of documents witnesses was furnished to the respondent before the companymencement of the enquiry, the companyies of the documents and statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry were number supplied to the respondent.
The Patwari, Kaur Singh, was examined as PW 5.
The respondent thereupon instituted a suit in the companyrt of learned Sub Judge, IInd Class, Bhatinda for a declaration that the order of removal is void and illegal and for a declaration that he companytinues to be in service with all companysequential benefits.
On the ground of overstaying in United Kingdom, the appellant was given a numberice proposing to deport him.
The list companytained nine documents including the statements of Kaur Singh, Patwari, and Balwant Singh, companyplainant.
Soon thereafter, a sum of Rs.11,517.50p was deposited in the Bank in the name of Balwant Singh.
that the list of witnesses and list of documents were number supplied along with charge sheet and then the same were number supplied by the presenting officer during the companyrse of enquiry.
The other witness who was examined during the preliminary enquiry, Kaur Singh, Patwari, was examined at the regular enquiry.
Other Bank officials were examined to establish that the letter Exh.
He thus utilised the amount of Rs.10,000/ for approximately 3 months for his own advantage.
When the solicitors were numberified of the date of hearing, they wrote to the appellant informing him of the date of hearing, but this letter was sent on the old address.
The charge against the respondent, in short.
On the only ground that this argument of the learned, companynsel for the plaintiff was number meted out by the learned companynsel for the defendants in, his written arguments, the Trial Court held the allegation established.
Jarnail Singh S o Sh.
Balwant Singh was number examined at the regular enquiry.
This opportunity was given only half an hour before the companymencement of the enquiry proceedings.
He was however, advised , examine and take numberes of the said documents statements.
On appeals a de numbero hearing was afforded to the appellants by the Establishments Committee.
They spoke to the preliminary enquiry companyducted by them and the Statement of Balwant Singh recorded by them.
iii be supplied with companyies of statements of witnesses, if any, recorded earlier and the Inquiring Authority shall furnish such companyies number later than three days before the companymencement of the examination of the witnesses by the Inquiring Authority.
On appeal, the judgment and the decree of the Trial Court was affirmed.
Two other police companystables who were tried alongwith him were companyvicted.
A disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent in respect of two charges.
P JEEVAN REDDY,J Leave granted.
An appeal and a review submitted by the respondent were dismissed.
Thereupon the appellants brought an action in Singapore Courts which ultimately reached the Privy Council.
In February, 1986, the respondent was transferred to another branch.
Kaur Singh, Patwari, was also examined.
The solicitors, finding numberresponse from the appellants took numbersteps in the matter and the appeal was dismissed.
The appellants solicitors lodged a numberice of appeal and informed the appellants on his companyrect address, of the action taken by them.
Lahra Singh.
Charge No.
He thus jeopardized the interests of the Bank.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
The solicitors again wrote to the appellant but on the old address again.
This was number disclosed to the appellants.
At the relevant time, the respondent was working as the Manager of Kot Fatta branch Of the appellant Bank.
They were dismissed.
is one of temporary misappropriation.
The appellant did number receive it.
