The court held that the employee's guilt was established by his own admission and other evidence on record, and that the non-production of the witness did not prejudice the employee's case. The court also held that the employee was not entitled to stay of the departmental proceedings pending the criminal case against him.

( 1 ) PETITION has been filed by the petitioner, seeking to challenge the orders Annexure-8 and Annexure-11, being dt. 19. 2. 1991 and 23. 4. 1992 respectively, whereby the punishment of removal from service was imposed, after holding departmental enquiry, and was affirmed in appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition are, that while working at sirohi Branch, an explanation was called from the petitioner regarding wrong payment of Rs. 700/- from S. B. Account of one Shri Naina Ram, which was replied on 22. 4. 1985. Thereafter a charge sheet dt. 19. 11. 1985, along with memorandum of charges was served upon him, being annexure-1. Before issuance of the charge sheet, an F. I. R. had already been filed on 18. 9. 1985, inter alia for the offences under Sections 408, 468, 411 and 201 I. P. C. , and the case had been registered on filing challan in the Court of Munsif Magistrate.

( 3 ) THE petitioner then requested the Bank on 22. 1. 1986, not to proceed with the departmental enquiry on the same charges. This request was turned down on 11. 6. 1986, and the petitioner was asked to submit reply, which was accordingly filed on 6. 7. 1986, denying all the charges. Then, Enquiry Officer was appointed. Then on 17. 11. 1986, the petitioner again requested, that since police had challenged the case on the same charges, which is subjudice, the enquiry may be stayed, but that request was also not acceded to. Thereafter, in the enquiry three witnesses were examined, being Shri D. C. Sharma, Shri P. D. Vaishnav, and Shri R. K. Suthar. However, Shri Naina Ram was not examined. The copies of the statements of three witnesses have been produced as Annexures 2, 3, and 4 respectively. It is then alleged, that the petitioner demanded copy of the duty list of Cashier/clerks, so also of Token Book on 3. 8. 1989, which was not supplied. Then, the petitioner demanded for perusal of the original documents on 3. 8. 1989, but these documents were also not got perused by him, and on 30. 8. 1989 only photo stat copies of specimen signature form, ledger sheet, withdrawal form, and preliminary report were shown, but copies were not supplied. Likewise, enclosures referred to in the preliminary report were neither got perused, nor supplied.

( 4 ) THIS objection was got noted on 30. 8. 1989 in the proceeding. It is then alleged, that these were subsequently shown in the Court, but copies were not supplied. It is then alleged, that the petitioner was required to adduce evidence on 26. 5. 1990, but since his wife was on advance family way, he informed the Enquiry officer on 25. 5. 1990, and applied for leave on 26. 5. 1990, and on reaching home he found the wife in a precarious condition, and confined to bed, and therefore, he requested for further extension, enclosing the medical certificates of wifes serious illness. It is alleged that the Enquiry officer presumably accepted this request, and fixed the date of hearing on 7. 6. 1990, at Joyala Branch, and the defence Counsel was said to have been asked to advise the petitioner, but then, the Defence Counsel did not inform the petitioner, and thus the petitioner remained under bonafide belief, that he will receive information about the date of hearing, and thus the petitioner could not attend the hearing on 7. 6. 1990. The allegation of the petitioner, then is, that in view of state of pregnancy of the wife, the petitioner sought leave, which was duly sanctioned for 7. 6. 1990, and that was extended upto 10. 6. 1990. The petitioners wife delivered child on 6. 6. 1990 at his village. However, it is alleged that the petitioner had to proceed to Sheoganj to procure medicine, and it was, when he was at the bus stand of the Sheoganj, that he found the enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, and he came to know from them, that they are proceeding to Joila Branch, for the purpose of holding the enquiry. However, the petitioner informed the fact that his wife has de