wfe^Sw^"—^-::-^!" r,S -^£ .^\^ cs •€ li-S ^Hs. HIGH GOURT OF JUDICATURS AT BILA3PUR, CHHATTISGARK WRIT P2TZTION N0. (4^ OF 2001 .FgTITIOl^R Waman»^< Wanre son of Roop Rao Wanre aged 40 years^ occupation- Service presently posted as Clerk-cum- Cashier^ Union Bank of Zndia^ Reglonal Office^ Raipur Raipur (C.G) WSRSUS ^- RBSPOMD&NTS ^-1» Union Bank of India A Banking Company registered under Corapanies Act through its Managing Directcc Union Bank of India, Central Office Mumbai ^ % ^^ ..-:.^' ?^^ ^--2- "^u!-' i' ^o' ^' ' .-.' ^^ ^".A 0-:'" ^^'y' ', ••^ -'a..--7 Disciplin^ry Authority w Industriai iielation Department Central Office, Union Bank of Indla, Mumbai ^^ 0_J.< Snquiry Officer and Disclp^inary v" Auth or ity - Departm ent of Personnel, Zonal Office, C2.II Bhopal (M»P) v,,^' PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF _TH@ ,CO_NST I?UTION__QF IITOIA POR ISSUANCE OF WtIT IN THE NftTURS OF CERTIOSARI. I-^NDAMUS PRQHIBITI^N_A1®.OTH£R_SUITABLS.WRITQR WRITS, DIRECTION OR £IR£S£IfiNS^-ORI^K»»OR^ORD^^a. ywV-^- ^^ea^a&^^:'^.,.^*.^,.?.^^^^.. XI-HC-22 "S^ '•^IFH^R, ^Tll^^ i^<rli<4y ^S^t T^ ^W^ll ^W^ '^^sr' r\7^ ^T f} ^ni^T w <'Hftn 37T^r i^nw^cT a^id 2-1-2004 Shri Manindra Shrivastat Advocates for the petitioner. Shi-i N.K. Vyas, Heard finally. By tlils writ petition Constitution of India, the cause notice for dismissal froui respondents without proper pra3^ed for quashing of thj 10.12.1999 (Annexure P/6) enquiry after giving proper respoiideiils liave Hled tlie grant of relief. Leamed counsel for thel petltioner has filed the replyl denying the allegations duringj ftu'ther subiiiitted that the opportunity ot' cross-exaiiiinat petitioner. During the course of h< respondents submitted that and the pctitioner has bcen 7a and Shri Ashish Shrivastava^ Advocatej for the respondents, pe^itioner -exaiiimation <^I^S<rt4l*T "WTOf ^ fe1^" ^N^^ '^3TP?RS:H^T i^iider Ai'ticle 226/227 of the contends that a show ser^ice has been issued by the lenquiry. The petitioner has show cause notice dated for making due and proper opi|ortunity of hearing to him. The preyimiiiary objectioii opposiiig tlie petitioner subinitted that the of ttie notice (Aiinexure P/7) |the course of the enquiry. It is wihiesscs werc exaiiiined but an was not atlbrded to the ^aring leamed coiinsel for the th^ugh the enquuy has been hekl f|>und guilty however, they wiU [^^fl^ XI-HC-22 -,^c?1^ ^m^" .. ^ ^^ ^WW^, ^W^^, (^<ySj^^< ^T^T, ^^K WR^II^RT^ 'fN^T' W^T'^ff^R; "^rf^T liold the enqiiiry afresh aifid the opportiinity of cross examination of the witnesses ^ Tlie prayer appears to b^ ^I^SQI^ HWW "^ 'fe^ 1[f^R:$R '^^rf^?H3??^T 1U be afforded to the petitioner. In that view of the matte|r, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to hold the ^nquiry afresh froni the stage of ^©^-cxainuiationof the witne^ses< At this stage, leamed coLlnsel for the pailies prayed that since the niatter is of the y4ar 1999, the enquiry niay be completed at the earllest. reasonable. It is directed that the enquuy be conipleted at ^he carliest preferably within a period of foui' months from ^he fii'st date of hearing. The parties are directed to appeai) 30.01.2004. enqiiiiy. Tliey ai'e al^o Consequently, M.W.P. 4152/2002 and 1133/2003 al^o stand disposed of. Certified copy as per rule^. before the Enquiry Officer on du-ected lo uooperale dui-iiig No.3322/2003 and I.A.Nos. !S» Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [<f^^^ -^. /"^te