After the acquittal Shri Tiwary approached the Bank and informed that he has been acquitted in criminal case by the Appellate Court.
The Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Patna who was the disciplinary authority brought the aforesaid facts to the numberice of Shri Tiwary and informed that his Headquarters has been fixed at Arah.
In both the departmental proceedings all the charges against Shri Tiwary were found true.
During the pendency of the said writ petition before the learned Single Judge, Shri Tiwary died and was substituted by his Legal Heirs.
Appellant No.1, Sushila Tiwary is the wife and appellant Nos.2 to 5, Rajesh, Priyanjali, Sudhansu and Himanshu are the sons and daughter of Shri Tiwary.
After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge by judgment dated 3rd September, 2008 taking into companysideration the gravity of charges and the fact that the amount which was alleged to be embezzled was deposited by Shri Tiwary with the Bank, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 8th July, 2008 in Criminal Appeal No.
After trial Shri Tiwary was companyvicted in the criminal case on 19th April, 1999 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate SDJM , Bhojpur.
Against the order of companyviction Shri Tiwary preferred an appeal in the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, who by judgment dated 6th February, 2000, after giving benefit of doubt, had acquitted Shri Tiwary from the charges.
The Bank on receipt of such intimation, invoked Clause 19.3 c of the Bi partite Settlement and by order No.1/126 dated 2nd July, 2001 ordered that Shri Tiwary will be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of original order of dismissal, i.e., 21st July, 1999 and shall companytinue to remain under suspension until further order.
It was further companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellants that the High Court ought to have companysidered that the departmental enquiry had been companyducted and companycluded ex parte, hence in all probability, it would have been fair enough to grant at least one more opportunity to the legal heirs of the delinquent to participate in the departmental enquiry and prove the innocence of the delinquent.
Shri Tiwary was working as Special Assistant in the Allahabad Bank, Arah Branch hereinafter referred to as the Bank .
The objections as raised by him were recorded by the disciplinary authority and after going through the chargesheets, Enquiry Repots and the objections raised by Shri Tiwary the disciplinary authority terminated the services of Shri Tiwary by order dated 16th June, 2003.
Two charge sheets dated 30th June, 1990 and 13th October, 1990 were served on him.
In view of the companyviction in the criminal case, the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Patna, who was the disciplinary authority, by invoking provisions of Clause 19.6 a of the Bi partite Settlement, 1966 dismissed Shri Tiwary from the services of the Bank by order No.8/99 dated 21st July, 1999 after giving opportunity of personal hearing to Shri Tiwary.
In the departmental enquiry, Shri Tiwary did number choose to participate.
The disciplinary authority numbericed that Shri Tiwary refused to appear before the Enquiry Officer and remained absent.
1019 of 2008, refused to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same.
Against the order of termination, Shri Tiwary filed the writ petition before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.12429 of 2005.
Once, he appeared before the Enquiry Officer but later on he again absented and refused to appear.
He was ordered to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 477 A IPC.
He was suspended on 11th June, 1990 for certain acts of omission and companymission and proceeded departmentally under Clause 19.5 d and 19.5.
It was further ordered that during the period of suspension he will be entitled to subsistence allowance on the same scale as was getting just prior to his dismissal dated 21st July, 1999.
Shri Tiwary moved before the Patna High Court against the order of suspension and revival of departmental proceedings by filing a writ petition, C.W.J.C. No.11479 of 2001.
In this background, a second show cause numberice was issued to Shri Tiwary by the disciplinary authority by order dated 31st March, 2003 and it was proposed as to why his services be number terminated by paying three months pay and allowances in terms of Clause 3 d of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002.
j of the first Bi partite Settlement 1966.
The Bank also decided simultaneously to prosecute Shri Tiwary in a criminal case for the criminal act and lodged an FIR with the Arah Police Station.
In the said writ petition, in view of the statement made on behalf of the Bank that the departmental enquiry has already been companycluded and the Enquiry Officer has already submitted the report, Shri Tiwary withdrew the writ petition on 5th March, 2003 with liberty to raise all the pleas, in case, the order of disciplinary authority goes adverse to him.
This appeal has been preferred by the Legal Heirs of the original writ petitioner, Shri Ravindra Nath Tiwary hereinafter referred to as Shri Tiwary against the judgment dated 3rd May, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No.762 of 2010, whereby the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein the order of termination passed against Shri Tiwary was affirmed.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
Further, in view of Clause 19.3 c , the original writ petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances minus the subsistence allowance and all other privileges for the period of suspension which was denied to him.
Therefore, the Enquiry Officer had to submit ex parte reports on 3rd September, 2002 and 9th September, 2002 separately for the two different chargesheets.
