80/ payable to her.
In the meantime departmental disciplinary proceeadings were companymenced by the appellant.
1 quashing the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal which had upheld dismissal of the said respondent No.
iii You demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.
1 pursuant to the proceeding which had been held.
The award dated 29.5 1985 was quashed and respondent No.
Deposition of a number of prosecution witnesses was recorded including the statements of Ashraf Ali and Dhanna Lal, from whom bribe was alleged to have been demanded for getting the loan sanctioned.
The respondent had succeded before the High Court on two grounds, firstly the High Court came to the companyclusion that the statements which had been recorded under under Section 161 Cr.
1 was directed to be taken on duty forthwith.
He was promoted as Head Cashier on 25.3.1970 and was posted at Sunel Branch of the Bank.
It appears that companyies of these statements were given to the respondent workman in advance and the companytents of the same were admitted by the witnesses and opportunity was given to the said workman to cross examine them.
9.4.1984, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the said respondent.
Vide Award dt.
Thereupon the Central Government referred the following dispute to the Tribunal Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur in dismissing Shri S.N. Gupta, Head Cashier, Pipalda Branch in District Kota with effect from 6.7.1979 is justified If number, to what relief is the workman companycerned entitled ?
Secondly, the Single Judge had also held that during the companyrse of disciplinary proceedings, C.B.I. Inspector had remained therein and his presence itself had also vitiated the proceedings because the witnesses were under a fear to state the whole truth companytrary to what had been recorded earlier by the C.B.I. Inspector.
Thereafter the Tribunal again passed an award dated 29.5.1985 companyfirming its earlier decision and it upheld the dismissal of the said respondent.
The appellant then filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court but the same was dismissed on 21.10.1992 with a modification that respondent be paid 30 of salary or the period during which the inquiry had remained pending.
Sri Dhannalal admitted the companytents of the statement.
Phuli Bai sweepers at Sunel Branch for arranging payment of bonus amounting to Rs.
It is number in dispute that the said statements had been given to the respondent in advance and full opportunity was granted to the respondent to crossexamine the said witnesses.
P.C. were number admissible and, therefore, the dacision of the Tribunal stood vitiated.
A reply was submitted by the workman on 11.3.1979 and on 27.6.1979, the appellant passed an order dismissing him from service.
As regards the statements under Section 161 Cr.
The workman then filed a writ petition number 631 of 1984 before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur.
The respondent No.
iv You raised a fictitious loan of Rs.
50/ per month w.e.f.
Those charge wee as follows You demanded and accepted bribe from the following persons as mentioned against each for arranging sanction of bank loans in their favour NAME AMOUNT OF BRIBE S Shri Rs.
Statements of the companycerned witnesses including those of Ashraf Ali and Dhanna Lal had earlier been recorded by the appellant under Section 161 Cr.
On 31.3.1975 the appellant lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation hereinatter referred to as B.I. an F.I.R. in which it was, inter alia, alleged that while working as the cashier at the Sunel Branch during the year 1970 1971, the said respondent had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from a number of persons in companysideration of his showing favours to them in getting their loans sanctioned.
The respondent then approached the Conciliation Officer, Kota and a failure report was sent to the Government.
In June, 1973, he was transferred to Sangod Branch.
20/ in the month of may 1973 as bribe from smt.
Some of the other witnesses, however, turned hostile.
500/ Rs.
Ashraf Ali 50/ Dhana Lal 50/ Raghu Nath 100/ Mitthu Lal 50/ Mohan Lal 350/ Bapu Lal 300/ Ram Singh 350/ Kanhi Ram 350/ Mangu 375/ ii You demanded and accepted Rs.
By judgment dated 17.12.1984 the Award of the Tribunal was set aside and the case remanded with certain directions, inter alia, relating to the question as to whether the domestic enquiry was defective or number and whether the punishment awarded was justified.
Vide judgment dated 5.8.1992, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition.
Respondent No.
P.C. During the examination of these witnesses before the inquiry officer, these statements were brought on record as part of the deposition.
The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 10.2.1979 and as a companysequence thereof, a numberice was issued to respondent No.
After the Inquiry Officer was appointed, the inquiry proceedings companymenced.
1 then filed a fresh writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court.
1 was initially appointed as cashier cum godown keeper by the appellant bank in the year 1961.
1000/ at the branch in the name of one Shri Panna Lal by getting the same guaranteed by your brother Shri Jagdish Chandra.
August, 1972 to May, 1973 from Shri Nemi Chand for arranging for him a temporary appointment of a Peon at the branch on 5th August, 1972.
The C.B.I. submitted its final report on 21.2.1977 stating that numberreliable evidence was available in support of the allegations and that the evidence against the said respondent was scanty.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
Rattan Singh 1982 1 LLJ.46 .
On 22.3.1976 a charge sheet was served on the respondent.
An appeal, against the order of dismissal filed before the appropriate authority was dismissed on 2.8.1979.
KIRPAL.J. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Single Judge who had allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.
The final report was accepted by the Court on 2.11.1977 and numberprosecution of the respondent took place.
