Judgment :-

Gokhale J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by the appellant Bank seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 31.1.2008 rendered by Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing LPA No. 17 of 2008 filed by the appellant Bank with costs. The impugned judgment was rendered in an appeal arising out of the judgment dated 26.11.2007 by a Single Judge of that court whereby the Learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition No. 2756 of 1986 filed by the respondent challenging his removal from service by the order of the appellant dated 17.4.1985.

3. The two impugned judgments have interfered with the order of removal on the ground of not furnishing the respondent a copy of the inquiry report before issuing the order of punishment and thereby not affording him an appropriate opportunity to defend resulting into denial of principles of natural justice causing him great prejudice. The appellant Bank has raised the question in this appeal as to whether the respondent was entitled either in law or as per the rules governing his service conditions to a copy of the inquiry report before issuance of the order of punishment.

4. Short facts leading to the appeal are as follows:

The respondent was working as a Manager of appellant's branch at Jallianwalan Bagh, Amritsar. He was served with a Charge Sheet dated 12.8.1983 which contained in all four charges. They were principally as follows:

(1.) He connived with the borrowers and showed undue favour to them by throwing bank's norms to winds. In that, amongst others particulars, it was alleged that when he has on leave from 09.02.1982 to 17.02.1982, he visited the office to issue the bank guarantee in the favour of Income Tax Officer, Amritsar on behalf of M/s Des Raj Aggarwal & Co.

(2.) The second charge was that he submitted wrong information to the authorities thereby concealed the factual state of affairs of the branch from the authorities.

(3.) The third charge was that he allowed unauthorized facilities to various parties during the period of credit squeeze for which his powers had been withdrawn.

(4.) The fourth charge consisting of three parts reads as follows:

(i) He misused his official position to secure undue benefit for himself. He was given a personal allowance of Rs. 147/- per month from 01.07.1979 at the time of fitment of the salary under PNB Officer Employees (Service) Regulations, 1979, which was to be adjusted out of annual grades increment @ 1/3rd of the increment of the year. He did not allow the person concerned to make any adjustment from the increments released in his favour.

(ii) He was sanctioned a refundable loan by the Trustees of the Provident Fund against his Provident Fund in 1973. He did not pay instalments. The balance as on 30.6.1981 was 5291/-.

(iii)The Regional Office, Amritsar sanctioned a consumer loan of Rs. 5000/-to Shri Verma for purchase of fridge. He showed the purchase of the said item from M/s Electronics Services Centre having cash credit limits with the Branch without actually purchasing the fridge. The firm M/s Electronics Service Centre is not dealing in refrigerators/fridges. The amount of fridge was paid cash through a cash order at the counter.

5. The respondent denied these allegations. According to him they were vague and general in nature. At the highest they may be considered as procedural lapses/minor irregularities during the discharge of duties. They would certainly not amount to moral turpitude, requiring a departmental enquiry for a major penalty.

6. A regular departmental inquiry was held thereafter into those allegations in terms of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1977, framed under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act) 1970. The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 7.2.1985 returning a finding that the first three charges were established but not the fourth one.

7. As can be seen from the earlier nar