SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Bom) 1062

2011(6) All MR 1
High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. BHANGALE
Balaji Digambarrao Kotgire
Versus
Enquiry Authority/Chief Manager, Disciplinary Action department, Oriental Bank of Commerce & Others
Writ Petition No. 2863 of 2007
Decided on : 07-09-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Bharti Dangre, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent:Anand Parchure, Advocate.

Headnote:Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227 and 311-Service matter-Removal from service-Petitioner Bank Officer, allegedly circulated fake currency notes-Disciplinary enquiry held-Petitioner removed from services-Supply of enquiry report to petitioner-Non-affording of opportunity of hearing on enquiry report-Breach of principles of natural justice-Vitiates order of removal-Impugned order of removal liable to be set aside. AIR 1991 SC 471-Relied on.-Need to appreciate and address an important question as to whether non-supply of enquiry report has resulted in prejudice to the petitioner. Wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge thereafter. This is so in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported in AIR 1991 SC 471 as also judgment in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, reported at (1993) 4 SCC 727, the rulings prima facie appear to have been breached in this case. In our opinion, the facts as in the instant case, can be said to have been crystallized only if proper procedure is followed and the petitioner is granted an opportunity to meet the findings recorded against him by the Enquiry Officer. The ends of justice shall be met if the petitioner is granted an opportunity to meet the serious charge against him and to substantiate his contentions raised in the petition for claiming the relief of reinstatement etc.

Judgment :-

A.P. Bhangale, J.

1. Heard. By this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for to quash and set aside the Award, Inquiry report dated 5.11.2004 passed by the Respondent no.1 Enquiry Authority, Chief Manager, Disciplinary Action Department, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi and the removal order dated 22.12.2004 passed by respondent no.3/Disciplinary authority, Deputy General Manager (Personnel), the order passed in appeal which was rejected by Respondent no. 4/Appellate Authority, General Manager (Personnel) on 14.02.2005, the order in Review application passed by the Respondent no 5, Reviewing authority, Executive Director on 9.05.2005. He has further prayed for to direction to the respondents for reinstatement of the Petitioner with full back wages, arrears and continuity of service with all ancillary benefits.

2. The facts in nutshell are thus:

That the Petitioner was appointed by the Regional Manager, South –Western region of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd, Mumbai as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Oriental Bank of Commerce since 7th July 1979. Having performed his duties at various places, he was promoted as a Head-cashier in the year 1981 and as a Special Assistant in the year 1985 and further as a Scale1 Officer in the Junior Management. He had also worked as a Branch Manager at Akola. On 3.08.1999 he had received the letter dated 3.08.1999 to appear for the interview on 16.08.1999 for the promotional scale II Officer. The Petitioner had, by representation, protested as to why the Bank did not adopt the sealed cover procedure to issue such confidential letter. While the Petitioner was working as an Officer-I, a complaint was lodged on 15.01.1998 at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. It was alleged that, on 9.1.1998, Cashier in the Receipt department namely Shri Shailendra Jethe showed some notes to the Chief manager of the Kingsway Branch (First informant) suspecting them as fake currency notes claiming that they were given by Shri Anandrao Bhende, Peon working in the Cash Department, for exchange. The Chief Manager had called two Officials in the Branch namely Shri Prakash Diwale and Shri Rajendra Damadu to verify those notes; they also suspected genuineness of those notes, but could not form any definite opinion. An Employee by name Shri Ganesh Narnavare came with an Employee of KCT Company (Bank customer) complaining that he had received 18 similar notes through Shri Bhagwan Bhakre, the Cashier. Peon Anandrao Bhende came in the Cabin and informed the said Officer about similar notes issued by Shri Bhakre to various other Customers. At the instance of Chief Manager, an Officer in the Bank collected 144 notes from the cabin of Shri Bhakre. The Chief Manager had questioned Shri Bhakre as to how he came in possession of fake currency notes. According to Shri Bhakre, he had received those notes amounting to Rs. 21,000/from the Petitioner. On 9.1.1998, Rs 28,000/in two vouchers, each in the sum of Rs 14,000/, were deposited by Shri Bhagwan Bhakre for issuance of the term deposit receipt under his signature. The said amount included the sum of Rs. 21,000/which were the doubtful currency notes along with cash withdrawal of Rs. 7000/from his Savings Bank Account. The complainant Officer Shri David had asked Shri Bhakre about the remaining 66 unaccounted doubtful currency notes. Shri Bhakre had informed him about payments made by him to various parties. Shri Bhakre was asked to collect the doubtful currency notes from the parties concerned. On that night, at about 8.30. p.m., Shri Bhagwan Bhakre had brought 66 currency notes and handed them over to the complainant Officer. Shri.Bhagwan Bhakre on or about 15.01.1998 stated that he had collected 16 notes from Cashpeon Shri Bhende and 50 notes from Shri Uike, customer having Savings Bank account with the Bank. The Complainant had contacted Shri P. K. Malhotra, AGM, Regional Office, Mumbai who had deputed Shri.S.C. Pande, Deputy Chief Manager for Inspection on 14.01.1998. Shri


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top