JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the findings of the Inquiry Officer vide order (Annexure P-6) and the order of punishment dated 05.07.1996 (Annexure P-8) vide which the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the appellate order dated 13.01.1997 (Annexure P-10) by which the said penalty has been confirmed by respondent No.3.

The Conspectus Of Facts

2. The petitioner, a citizen of India, was working as an Assistant Manager/Staff Officer at Bank of India, Gaggo Mahal Branch, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. While in service, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 21.03.1995 (Annexure P-1) containing three articles of charge relating to alleged unauthorised transactions in Saving Bank Account No. 5950, availing of a consumer loan in the name of another staff member, and an alleged irregularity in availing a demand loan against bank deposits.

3. Prior to issuance of the charge-sheet, a preliminary investigation was conducted by Shri P.K. Kesri, Investigation Officer, who allegedly acted in connivance with the Branch Manager. Statements were allegedly obtained from the petitioner under coercion and various staff members were examined. The charge-sheet was issued on the basis of the said investigation report, though a copy of the report was never supplied to the petitioner despite repeated demands. Parts of the investigation material were relied upon during the enquiry, yet the Investigation Officer himself was not produced as a witness.

4. During the departmental enquiry, only three management witnesses were examined. The petitioner was denied production of several relevant documents on the ground of privilege, contrary to the Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short as “1976 Regulations”).

5. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of all charges. The Disciplinary Authority, ignoring the petitioner’s detailed representation and his unblemished past service record, imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 05.07.1996 (Annexure P-8).

6. This decision was influenced by adverse observations of the Chief Vigilance Officer, a copy of which was never supplied to the petitioner.

7. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 13.01.1997 (Annexure P-10) without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

8. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the enquiry report, dismissal order, and appellate order, along with reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

Contentions On behalf of Petitioners

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental enquiry is vitiated due to blatant violation of principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of the 1976 Regulations. The charge-sheet was based on a preliminary investigation report which was never supplied to the petitioner, though relied upon during the enquiry, thereby denying him a fair opportunity of defence.

10. It is contended that statements recorded by the Investigation Officer were exhibited and relied upon, yet the Investigation Officer himself was not produced for cross-examination, causing serious prejudice. The petitioner was further denied copies of examination-in-chief of management witnesses and several material documents were wrongly declared privileged at the instance of the Presenting Officer, in violation of Regulations 6(11) and 6(12) of the 1976 Regulations.

11. Learned counsel argues that the Enquiry Officer violated Regulation 6(17) by not questioning the petitioner on circumstances appearing against him and also conducted crucial proceedings in his absence despite a medical certificate. The findings on Article-I are assailed as perverse and based on presumptions, particular