A delinquent employee cannot claim non-receipt of a notice sent by registered post to their correct address, as a legal presumption of service exists, justifying ex-parte proceedings if the employee deliberately avoids participation.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present civil writ 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 the impugned order of dismissal dated 07.08.2004 (Annexure P-24) and the appellate order dated 20.05.2008 (Annexure P-38), with a further prayer for reinstatement with all consequential benefits including payment of subsistence allowance from the date of suspension to the date of dismissal.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner joined the respondent bank on 23.01.1989 as an officer and was confirmed on 23.01.1991. He contends that the suspension order dated 02.06.2003 was issued in retaliation to his complaint dated 06.05.2003 against the management. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 24.07.2003 but was only served the same on 20.11.2003, after four months, and his demand for documents and list of witnesses was never complied with. The subsistence allowance was also stopped despite his representation dated 29.09.2003, legal notice dated 31.10.2003, and undertaking dated 07.11.2003. The Enquiry Officer was inimical and biased, and the petitioner gave a complaint dated 21.02.2004 in this regard. On 23.04.2004, the Enquiry Officer demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000/-, and the petitioner sent a telegram to the Chairman, Punjab National Bank. The inquiry was hurriedly completed ex-parte despite his request for change of Enquiry Officer being pending, and the Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 09.06.2004. The petitioner was dismissed on 07.08.2004, but the dismissal order was not communicated to him for nearly two years, and he received the same only on 25.05.2006 after writing six letters. His appeal was dismissed on 20.05.2008. The five complaints forming the basis of the charge-sheet are manipulated, as evident from the equal amount of Rs. 20,000/- in each, the similarity in content, and the fact that no FIR was registered despite a complaint to the SHO.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the charge-sheet suffers from inherent defects as it does not contain a list of witnesses or a list of documents, which handicapped the petitioner from filing an effective reply. The non-payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings made it impossible for the petitioner to defend himself, as he had a wife and children to feed. The respondents deliberately delayed conveying the dismissal order and deciding the appeal to ensure that the petitioner could not approach this Court for quick relief. The Enquiry Officer was biased, and the representation for his change was never decided, which vitiates the entire proceedings. The long duration of the enquiry proceedings, the deliberate delay in conveying the final order, and the absence of any reply to the petitioner's various representations amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner seeks re-appreciation of evidence, which is outside the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Relying upon B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India , (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Union of India v. P.