The non-examination of the makers of documents does not necessarily vitiate an impugned order if there is sufficient other documentary evidence to establish the charges.

R.M.Prasad, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.4.1992 (Annexure-1) passed by the disciplinary authority, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the order dated 21.1.1993 and 21.7.1993 passed by the appellate authority and the Chief Manager respectively rejecting the appeal and the mercy appeal, vide orders contained in Annexures 2, 2/1 and 3 respectively.

2. The petitioner was the Branch Manager in Banipur Branch of the Central Bank of India. A disciplinary proceeding was started against him on various charges in relation to his alleged unauthorised actions in the matter of disbursement of loans to borrowers and also to non-existent persons. The departmental enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer who submitted his report finding all charges levelled against the petitioner proved and the disciplinary authority pursuant to the said order imposed the punishment of dismissal from service as per Regulation 4(h) of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976, vide Annexure 1, The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred appeal before the appellate authority, who also upheld the aforementioned punishment of dismissal from Banks service, vide order contained in Annexure-2, whereafter the petitioner filed mercy petition before the Managing Director of the Bank who also declined to interfere with the order of punishment, vide Annexure-3, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

3. It is contended by Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffer from the view of non-observance of the rules of natural justice, besides the regulation of the Bank relating to the same. According to him, the enquiry officer relied on the documents which were neither mentioned in the charge nor supplied to the petitioner. It is further contended that some of the document, on which reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer, the makers of the same were not examined and as such, the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of cross-examining them. It is submitted by Mr. Thakur that Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 on which reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer for holding the petitioner guilty were neither supplied to him (the petitioner) nor the makers of the same has been examined. He also contended that the said point was raised before the appellate authority specifically in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the memorandum of appeal hut the appellate authority has also not considered the same. As such, according to him, the impugned orders are fit to be set aside on the above grounds.

4. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank has submitted that the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not correct in his submission that the appellate authority has not considered the said submissions raised in the appeal. In this regard he referred to paragraph 3 at the appellate authoritys order, contained in Annexure-2. It is submitted by him that the appellate authority has taken notice of the tract that apart from the said documents, there were enough other documentary evidence adduced in the enquiry to establish that the petitioner made a number of bogus loans in order to misappropriate the loan amount.

5. There appears to be substance in the submissions of Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank. In Annexure-2 the appellate authority has considered the said aspect and has taken into consideration that the presenting officer pointed out many irregularities in some loan accounts on pages 78-79 of the enquiry proceedings, for example, rate of bamboo-boring pipe and iron boring pipe and affidavit of borrower in record of a later date than the date of disbursement of loan (bill of goods). He has also taken notice of the fact that the loan applications and documents were for one person whereas BDO report and affidavit for that loan are for another person etc. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, it