JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gopal K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 26.5.1997 and 23.12.1997 passed by the opposite parties nos. 2 and 1 contained as Annexure nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.

(b) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the orders dated 26.5.1997 and 23.12.1997 passed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 1 contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.

(c) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume his duties forthwith with full back wages/salary and to continue to pay salary to the petitioner regularly each month as and when its falls due.

(d) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction requiring the opposite parties to pay heavy cost to the petitioner for subjecting him to unwarranted harassment and mental anguish.

(e) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.

(f) to allow the writ petition with costs.”

3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as a Clerk with the Central Bank of India and terms and conditions of service of the petitioner were governed by bipartite settlement as amended from time to time. While posted at Vivekanand Polyclinic Branch, Lucknow the petitioner was placed under suspension vide an order dated 2.3.1995 on the complaint of a customer that he had prepared a forged Khazana deposit pass book to defraud the bank. On 18.5.1995 the opposite party no. 2 issued a memo to the petitioner in respect of 7 lapses allegedly committed by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said memo on 8.6.1995 denying the alleged lapses.

On 3.7.1995, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for having committed certain alleged acts of misconduct as detailed therein. It is pertinent to point out that a bare reading of the charge-sheet would indicate that it already recorded findings of guilt and was not a memo of charge. The said charge-sheet did not contain list of documents/witnesses and copies of prior statements which is also in violation of circular dated 23.8.1984 issued by the Central Office of the Bank to all its Chief Managers, which is based on directions issued by the Government of India through the Central Vigilance Commission vide letter dated 3.7.1984.

The enquiry commenced on 18.7.1995 and concluded on 18.9.1996. The said enquiry is vitiated as the statements of witnesses recorded ex-parte were taken into account by the Enquiry Officer, though despite specific demand by the petitioner, he was refused cross examination of the said witnesses. Significantly, the so called complainants informed the enquiry officer that they had no complaint against the petitioner, but instead of dropping the charges be proceeded with the