IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that violations of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings can lead to the quashing of dismissal orders and entitlement to benefits for the affected employee's legal representatives.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.

CM-11123-CWP-2023

The present application has been filed for placing on record written statement on behalf of respondent No.2 alongwith Annexures R-2/1 to R-2/3.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.2 alongwith Annexures R-2/1 to R-2/3 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

Main case

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure P-17) passed by respondent No.1 to the extent that the matter has been remanded back to respondents No.2 & 3 to carry put inquiry in pursuance of charge sheet dated 08.01.1981 with a further prayer for directing the respondent-Bank to treat him in service and pay him arrears of salary from the date of his suspension i.e. 22.12.1983 till reinstatement alongwith interest and to pay him subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension in terms of order passed by this Court in RSA No.1609/1995 and in SLP No.12538 of 2017. Further prayer has been made to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner alongwith interest @ 18%.

Factual Matrix :-

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner namely, Virender Kumar was appointed as a Secretary with respondent-Bank on 23.03.1976. However, on 16.04.1977 his services were terminated by respondent-Bank. He challenged the aforesaid order of termination before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies who allowed the appeal filed before him on 21.05.1979 and thereafter, he joined the duties and was also paid back wages. On 08.01.1981, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure R-2/2 alleging that embezzlement was done by him on different counts of total amount which appears to be about Rs. 13,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet, departmental proceedings commenced which culminated into an order of termination on 27.11.1981. He preferred a statutory appeal against the aforesaid order of termination and his appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority on 27.10.1983. He was re-instated and a direction was issued for conducting a de novo enquiry because when the enquiry was conducted, there was violation of principles of natural justice and on this ground, the appeal was allowed. Thereafter, in pursuance of the aforesaid order in appeal, he as a consequence of the same was re-instated on 22.12.1983. Thereafter, on 30.12.1983 in pursuance of the aforesaid appellate order de novo enquiry commenced and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer in his report held that charges are proved against the petitioner vide report (Annexure P-5) on 22.03.1984. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 10.12.1984. Against the aforesaid order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal which was however dismissed on 31.07.1985. Against the aforesaid order of dismissal and the appellate order, the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction which was decreed by the Civil Court on 04.06.1992. The respondent-Bank preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. The learned lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 21.01.1995. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court by filing Regular Second Appeal i.e. RSA No.1609 of 1995 before this Court. The aforesaid RSA filed by the petitioner was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-1 on 03.11.2016. It was so observed that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to adduce evidence and to furnish documents that were relied upon by the prosecution in the enquiry which is mandatory and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court dated 21.01.199