The court upheld that disciplinary inquiries must adhere to natural justice principles and can result in dismissal when preponderance of evidence indicates misconduct.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in imposing the punishment of dismissal which is a disqualification for future employment vide order dated 27.09.2008; order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.01.2009 and order of the Review Authority dated 15.07.2009 confirming the punishment of dismissal from service as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential reliefs.

2. The case of petitioner is that he joined the Central Bank of India as Agricultural Assistant on 07-08-1978 and was promoted up to the rank of Manager on 31-03-2002 and worked as such at Visakhapatnam Branch. While he was working at Hubli Branch, the Assistant General Manager/Disciplinary Authority vide Memo dated 28-12-2006 called upon petitioner to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken alleging three acts of misconduct viz., one Sri Narasimha, Proprietor, Dolphin Chemicals, Visakhapatnam sought for enhancement in limits and that petitioner had made him to believe that he was looking after credit portfolio at the branch and demanded favours from the said party such as drinks and illegal gratification; that even after transfer, he used to telephone the said person, demanding money and threatening him; and that petitioner was entrusted with the job of recovery of bad and doubtful assets, however, he did not perform his duties as expected of him and indulged in activities which are unbecoming of a bank officer. Petitioner submitted explanation dated 09-02-2007 denying the allegations, however, the Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager of Hyderabad Zonal Office, issued him a Memorandum of Charge Sheet dated 01-11-2007 and asked to submit written statement of his defence within 7 days of receipt. It was also alleged that the Articles of charges would constitute misconduct under Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Petitioner is stated to have made representation dated 09-11-2007 to give him a reasonable opportunity and time up to 26.012.2007 for submission of defense statement after verification of the records and also requested to permit him go Visakhapatnam for verification of documents. But the Disciplinary Authority appointed and directed Presenting Officer to present Bank's case and Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges alleged against him. Then, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25177 of 2007, wherein stay of departmental enquiry was granted. Thereafter, petitioner submitted explanation after furnishing documents referred to in Annexure-III. Thereafter, when it was reported that petitioner submitted explanation on 08-01-2008, the Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous. Further, the Inquiring Authority without following due procedure and without furnishing relevant documents, conducted enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice and submitted report dated 06-09-2008 holding charge No. 1 as proved and Charge No. 2 partly proved. On 11-9-2008, petitioner made detailed requisition dated 17-09-2008 to furnish the documents, which were not furnished to me on earlier occasion and not to take any decision based on the report. When, without furnishing the documents, Respondents are preparing to pass the final orders, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 20498 of 2008, wherein interim order dated 22-09-2008 was passed to consider the representation dated 26-08-2008 and pass appropriate orders. In terms thereof, bank furnished copies of documents which were received by petitioner on 30-09-2008; even prior thereto, Disciplinary Authority issued proceedings dated 27-09-2008 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 24420 of 2008 and obtained interim suspension by order dated 07-11-2008. Thereafter, on the premise that petitioner preferred an Appeal to the Appellate Authority, the said Writ Petition was disposed