Civil Writ Petition No.2756 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.2756 of 1986 Date of Decision: November 26, 2007 Shri K.K.Verma .......Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.GS Bajwa, Advocate for the respondents. --- S. D. ANAND, J. 1. Following an indictment in a regular departmental enquiry, the Competent Authority imposed a penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner. This fact is beyond the pale of controversy. 2. The plea, pressed at the time of arguments on behalf of the petitioner, is that the impugned order, dated 17.4.1985 (Annexure P6) deserves invalidation on account of the fact that it was passed without at all affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Resisting that plea, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the enquiry proceedings, on the basis whereof, the impugned order came to be passed, were held in accordance with the relevant rules and the petitioner would not be able to Civil Writ Petition No.2756 of 1986 -2- indicate any infraction of rules in the conduct of the enquiry proceedings. 3. The resistance, offered on behalf of the respondents, is plainly illogical, unsustainable and irrelevant. It is not any irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry which has been presently highlighted on behalf of the petitioner to obtain the invalidation of his impugned dismissal. The petitioner has, for the moment, assailed the impugned dismissal order itself as being violative of principles of natural justice. 4. For appreciation of the controversy, the impugned order may be re-produced in toto: “Punjab National Bank Zonal Officer Chandigarh. Ref: ZO:DAC: Dated: 17.4.85 Shri K.K.Verma, 251-Green Avanue, Amritsar. Reg: Departmental Enquiry against you – charge-sheet Dated 12.8.83. You were served with charge-sheet dated 12.8.83 for the serious irregularities/lapses committed by you while working as Manager, BO: Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar. To know the truth of imputations of lapses on your part, enquiry proceedings were initiated against you in terms of PNB Officer Employees (D&A) Regulations, 1977 (Clause-6) and for this purpose Shri A.L.Pahwa, Manager, BC: Akali Market, Amritsar, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri A.K.Aggarwal, Manager, PF Deptt., HO, New Delhi was Civil Writ Petition No.2756 of 1986 -3- appointed as Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer has since submitted his report alongwith relevant records of the proceedings in the above matter. I have carefully gone through the report alongwith the entire record of the enquiry proceedings and agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and hold you guilty of the aforesaid serious irregularities/lapses. Keeping in view the above, I decide to impose upon you the major penalty of your removal from the service of the Bank with immediate effect. A copy of the detailed orders passed by the undersigned in regard to the above matter alongwith a copy of the Enquiry Report is enclosed herewith. Sd/- Disciplinary Authority Deputy General Manager” 5. As would be apparent from a perusal of the above quoted impugned order, respondent No.2 – Disciplinary Authority just perused the report furnished by the Enquiry Officer, made up its mind on the basis of the finding and proceeded to impose the major penalty of removal of the petitioner from service. There is no escape from the conclusion that no copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner nor was he afforded an opportunity of hearing against the imposed punishment. 6. Faced with the predicament of having to explain the raising of irrelevant resistance, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the bank record does otherwise indicate that a copy of the enquiry report had been furnished to the petitioner in the first instance and his reply to the Civil Writ Petition No.2756 of 1986 -4- proposed punishment had been taken into consideration before the impugned order came to be granted. I called upon the learned counsel to show any such record to this Court which would bear out his assertion. The query by this Court drew a blank. In view, thus, of the fact that even the impugned order does not indicate that an opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be granted and there also is no material obtaining on the file to prove that a copy of the enquiry report had been furnished to him before hand to say whatever he had to in the context of the proposed punishment and also in view of the inability on the part of the learned counsel for the respondents to invite the attention of the Court to any material supportive of the plea raised by him, it is apparent that the impugned order deserves to be invalidated. 7. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 17.4.1985 (Annexure P6) shall stand set aside. However, it will be open to the Competent Authority to decide the question of proposed punishment after following the principles of natural justice by furnishing to the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report and also affording him opportunity of hearing in the context of the proposed punishment. While deciding upon the proposed punishment, it will be appropriate for the Competent Authority to keep in view that the petitioner is out of job since the year 1985. The period of service put in by the petitioner would also be a factor to be taken into consideration in the context. ( S. D. ANAND ) November 26, 2007 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether referred to reporter ? Yes/No `