1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 568 of 2001 MANOHAR LAL V/S DUNGARPUR CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD. & ANR Mr. MANOJ PAREEK for Mr. SANJAY MATHUR, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. DK PARIHAR, for the respondent Date of Order : 13.10.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE MRS. MEENA V. GOMBER,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.3.2001 dismissing the writ petition, which was filed for challenging the order of the punishment passed by respondent removing him from service vide order dated 17.6.1991, Annex.8. The necessary facts are that the petitioner was served with the charges on 8.7.1988. The charges included the charges of embezzlement, misappropriation and helping in misappropriation of funds of the bank in various amounts. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Then Inquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted the inquiry, and submitted the inquiry report, finding the charges to be proved. From perusal of the inquiry report, it transpires that the petitioner had been adopting the attitude of avoidance and had been absenting on all material occasions, obviously compelled by the circumstances, the Inquiry Officer recorded the departmental evidence on 25.5.1990 in absence of the 2 appellant. Thereupon on the next date being 23.6.1990, the appellant appeared, who was made available the copies of the statements and documents, but the appellant expressed to be not desirous to be producing any evidence, still one more opportunity was given and the matter was adjourned to 28.7.1990, on which date again, he was asked to produce his evidence, but he declined and requested only to argue the matter orally, and thereupon arguments were heard and the inquiry report was submitted. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority issued notice for personal hearing and to show cause for proposing punishment and enclosing the inquiry report vide communication, Annex.7 calling upon the appellant to appear personally on 11.2.1991 if he desires to have any personal hearing. Significantly, to this also, the appellant did not submit any reply or objections, rather simply sought few adjournments, which too were granted but then finally he did not appear, nor did he submit any representation and consequently, the punishment order, Annex.8 was passed. Learned Single Judge found that as per the inquiry report, the appellant had misappropriated a sum of Rs.34,911.45 paisa and misused the public fund of Rs.77,870/- and was party to misappropriation of Rs.52982.62 paisa, which was misappropriated by other employee of the bank and which would not have been possible if the appellant as Manager of the bank had sincerely and honestly discharged his duties. Learned Single Judge also found that it appears to him that right from beginning the appellant was playing smart with the bank and tried to create a ground to challenge the penalty order in future by not remainign present in the inquiry on flimsy grounds. He failed to remain present even at the time 3 of personal hearing and as such, he cannot make any grievance about the principles of natural justice. Thus, interference was declined. Assailing the impugned judgment, it was submitted that the appellant was not given opportunity to cross-examine the three departmental witnesses, being Dinesh Pandiya, Gajraj Singh, and Karan Singh. In our view, as noticed above, the appellant himself absented on 25.5.1990 on which date their statements were recorded. It is clear from the Inquiry Officer's report that on 19.6.1989 the appellant requested that he himself would defend his inquiry, then on 25.4.1990, 9.5.1990 and 25.5.1990, the appellant absented, and therefore, their statements were recorded. Then on the next date being 23.6.1990 he appeared, on which day again he was furnished the copies of the statements and other documents produced by the department, but then significantly, even on that day, he did not make any request for being permitted to cross-examine these three witnesses. We pointedly asked the learned counsel, as to on what date request was made on behalf of the appellant to be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses, but learned counsel could not give any date. Even in the writ petition it is not the averment that on 23.6.1990, or on the subsequent adjourned date 28.7.1990 he ever requested for being given opportunity to cross-examine. In that view of the matter, this contention cannot be accepted. It is different story that the contention could very well be raised by the appellant in response to Annex.7 by submitting appropriate representation. The next submission made is that the appellant was not given appropriate hearing. In our view, the facts narrated 4 above need not be repeated and they themselves clearly show that the ground is not available to the appellant. The last submission made was that the order of the punishment was passed by the Managing Director while according to Regulation 17(4) as appears in Annex.2, the punishment order could be passed on the recommendation of the Board of Directors of the LAMPS. It would suffice to say that this very provision provides for order of punishment being appealable and also provides for a second appeal. Obviously if the appellant would have filed appeal, this would have become clear, either that the order was passed on the recommendation of the Board of Directors, or that, that requirement is not attracted in the present case. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain that ground. It is again a different story that this ground was not raised in the arguments before the learned Single Judge. Thus, in our view, the impugned order does not require any interference in our appellate jurisdiction. The appeal thus, has no force and is dismissed. ( MEENA V. GOMBER ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/