W.P. (C) 2903/2003

Page 1 of 60

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on :

25^th July, 2022

Pronounced on: 13^th October , 2022

+

W.P.(C) 2903/2003

VIJAY MALHAN

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Srishti Agnihotri and Ms.

Sanjana Grace Thomas, Advocates

versus

UOI & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms.

Saroj

Bidawat,

Senior

Standing Counsel with Ms. Priti

and Ms. Anupriya, Advocates

Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate for

OBC

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India has been filed by the Petitioner who was earlier posted as the

Assistant General Manager, Regional Inspectorate at Chandigarh,

challenging the order dated 23^rd January 2003 directing the removal of

Petitioner from services of Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter

referred to as “Respondent Bank”) passed by the Disciplinary Authority

and upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28^th February

2003.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004231

W.P. (C) 2903/2003

Page 2 of 60

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The brief facts for the disposal of the instant writ petition are that

the Petitioner was appointed as a Branch Manager in the Respondent

Bank in the year 1975. On the pretext of an anonymous complaint, the

Petitioner was initially issued a show cause letter dated 15^th March 1996

by the Respondent Bank on four charges and was asked for his

explanation. The Petitioner sent his comments on the charges levelled

against him, pointing out the baselessness thereof vide communication

dated 25^th March 1996 and 8^th April 1996.

3. Upon receipt of explanation from the Petitioner, the Chief

Vigilance Officer of the Respondent Bank addressed a letter dated 22^nd

June 1996, to the DGM, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai saying that:

no reason to disbelieve the statement of Sh. Malhan”

4. The Disciplinary Authority issued another memo dated 14^th July

1998, to the Petitioner containing seven charges altogether, including the

aforesaid four charges. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the said

memo and on 23^rd October 1999 a charge sheet was issued to the

Petitioner on the said seven charges. A regular inquiry was set up to

enquire into the aforesaid seven charges against the Petitioner and

Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries was deputed as the Inquiry

Authority.

5. The Inquiry Authority vide report dated 27^th June 2002 exonerated

the Petitioner of all the charges as nothing could be brought against the

Petitioner by the bank during the inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority sent

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004231

W.P. (C) 2903/2003

Page 3 of 60

a disagreement note dated 13^th August 2002 and thus invited

representation from the Petitioner. In response to the aforesaid

disagreement as communicated by the Disciplinary Authority, the

Petitioner sent his representation dated 28^th September 2002 to the

Disciplinary Authority. Receiving no response to the communication

from the Disciplinary Authority, Petitioner filed a writ petition in the

High Court of Delhi bearing number C.W.P. 1033 of 2003 on 5^th

February 2003 praying for directions to the Respondent Bank to

communicate the decision on the representation of the Petitioner dated

28^th September 2002. At the time of the hearing of that writ petition, on

7^th February 2003 the counsel for the Respondent Bank informed a

Coordinate Bench of this Court that the Disciplinary Authority has

already disposed of the representation of the Petitioner and has removed

him from the service vide its order dated 23^rd January 2003. The relevant

portion of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court has been

reproduced herein below:

“Counsel appearing for the Oriental Bank of Commerce,

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/