IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11874 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 07.08.2009 Mohan Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Manager in the Gobindpur Branch of the Nawanshahr Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nawanshahr (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent bank'), has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 24.8.2007 (Annexure P-3), whereby he was dismissed from service by the Board of Directors of the respondent bank after holding a regular departmental enquiry; order dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P-5) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid decision of the Board of Directors was dismissed by the Additional Registrar (Credit), Cooperative Societies, Punjab; and the order dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure P-6), whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid two orders has been dismissed by the Financial CWP No. 11874 of 2009 -2- Commissioner, Cooperation Punjab. In the present case, when the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager at Gobindpur Branch of the respondent bank, complaints were made against him by depositors in respect of embezzlements made by him in their accounts. The respondent bank appointed Senior Manager and Assistant Manager to conduct a fact finding enquiry. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted by them, vide letter dated 30.11.2005 issued by the respondent bank, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within 10 days. The petitioner neither submitted any reply to the show cause notice nor came present to attend his duty. Since the petitioner continuously remained absent for a long period, he was charge sheeted. Vide letter dated 23.1.2006, copy of the charge sheet was sent to him and he was asked to submit his reply to the same within 20 days. But the petitioner neither submitted reply to the charge sheet nor came present on duty. Thereafter, vide resolution dated 12.4.2006, a Senior Manager of the respondent bank was appointed to conduct regular enquiry and it was also resolved to get an FIR registered against the delinquent employee in respect of the amount embezzled by him. Though the petitioner did not attend the enquiry, but he challenged the said resolution by filing a revision petition before Additional Registrar (D) Co-operative Societies, Chandigarh, which was dismissed being not maintainable. The petitioner filed a writ petition (CWP No. 12477 of 2006) against the said order. In that writ petition, the order passed by the revisional authority was set aside and the case was remanded with a CWP No. 11874 of 2009 -3- direction to the revisional authority to decide the same on merits within three months. The revisional authority, vide its order dated 17.1.2007, upheld the resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent bank, except the portion vide which decision was taken to register FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 27.1.2007 at 11 AM. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer on the said date. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer sent registered letters to the petitioner in order to give him an opportunity to submit his case. When the petitioner did not appear, notice was also got published in daily `Ajit' informing him to come present before the Inquiry Officer. When the petitioner did not come present before the Inquiry Officer, the enquiry was conducted ex-parte and the report was submitted, in which it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. The Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner had withdrawn money from the accounts of the depositors of the bank by forging signatures of the clients. Thus, he had tarnished the image of the respondent bank in the mind of the clients. The absence of the petitioner from duty since 15.11.2005 was also proved. The said enquiry report was considered by the Board of Directors, which was the disciplinary authority qua the petitioner. The Board of Directors, vide resolution dated 11.6.2007, agreed with the enquiry report and proposed the punishment of dismissing the petitioner from service. The show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment was sent CWP No. 11874 of 2009 -4- to the petitioner, who filed reply to the same. The Board of Directors, after considering the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice, passed the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The said order has been upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. \ I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned orders. Counsel for the petitioner made two fold submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the petitioner was wrongly proceeded ex-parte and he was not provided full opportunity to defend himself. Secondly, the Board of Directors did not supply copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and did not provide him opportunity to file objections to the same. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in both the submissions made by him. It is conceded position that the revisional authority, while upholding part of the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 12.4.2006 regarding appointment of the Inquiry Officer to conduct regular inquiry against the petitioner, directed the petitioner to be present before the Inquiry Officer on 27.1.2007 at 11 AM, but the petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer on the aforesaid date. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer sent registered letters to the petitioner in order to provide him an opportunity to submit his case, but in spite of those registered letters, he did not appear. Thereafter, notice was got published in the news paper. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner went CWP No. 11874 of 2009 -5- to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 27.1.2007, but the Inquiry Officer was not found there and therefore, he could not appear before him and subsequently, he did not receive the notice, cannot be accepted. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself, but he deliberately chose not to appear before the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, in those circumstances, in my opinion, the Inquiry Officer rightly proceeded the petitioner ex-parte. In the ex-parte enquiry, charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. Thus, I do not find any substance in the first submission made by counsel for the petitioner. Regarding the second submission, it is clear from the record that when the Board of Directors proposed the punishment, then a notice of the proposed punishment along with the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner, to which he filed a detailed reply and the same was taken into consideration by the Board of Directors, while imposing the punishment. I do not find any irregularity in this regard. Keeping in view the nature of the serious allegations against the petitioner, which stand proved during the enquiry, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal from service is unproportionate or unreasonable. In my opinion, the respondent bank has followed the prescribed procedure while conducting the enquiry and imposing the punishment. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have also affirmed the order of punishment, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and by passing speaking orders. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders, CWP No. 11874 of 2009 -6- passed by the Board of Directors, Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. August 07, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE