Vijay Kumar Sharma vs Oriental Bank of Commerce

Sureshwar Thakur, J.—The petitioner, is, aggrieved by the order of dismissal, pronounced against him, in, pursuance to a detailed inquiry, with which, he was beset. The impugned order of dismissal, is, comprised in Annexure P-24. The charge/imputation of mis-conduct, against the delinquent/petitioner, is, recited in Annexure P-7. The genesis of the charge, is, Annexure P-1 (copy of Hundi). Succinctly, the petitioner/delinquent, is, alleged to have unauthorizedly confirmed the acceptance of Hundi, by the two officials of the Bank, namely, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Ashok Katoch, who did not hold any authorization, from the bank, to do so. The inquiry Officer, after, considering the entire material, laid down before him, by the presenting officer, in, proof of imputation of mis-conduct/charge, leveled against the delinquent/petitioner, rendered his conclusions in Annexure P-22. The conclusions went against the petitioner/delinquent, which, sequelled dismissal of the petitioner/delinquent, from service.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at, the Bar that though he has preferred an appeal, against the impugned orders, before the appellate authority comprised, in, Annexure P-25, however, he had merely received a communication comprised, in, Annexure P-26, of the learned appellate authority having affirmed the decision, as taken by the Inquiry Officer. The detailed order pronounced by the appellate authority, portraying application of quasi judicial mind, by the appellate authority, to, the grounds as taken before it, which prodded him, to, hence purportedly decline the plea of the petitioner, hence, as such, its non-furnishing to the petitioner, prejudiced and jeopardized his rights, to, efficaciously in the writ proceedings, assail the purported orders rendered by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the Bank, fairly submits that he has no objection, if this Court, orders, for, copy of the order, pronounced by the appellate authority, whereby he affirmed the decision, as, rendered by the inquiry officer, being supplied, to, the delinquent/petitioner expeditiously. Given the facts, as, have emerged, during the course of hearing, this Court is constrained to order that respondent shall positively supply a copy of order, rendered by the appellate authority, to, the petitioner/delinquent, within a period of three weeks.

Learned counsel for the Bank, further submits that, in, case the petitioner/delinquent, needs, an opportunity of being heard, he shall be given such an opportunity of being heard afresh, before the appellate Authority. Naturally, then this Court, is constrained, to, order for the petitioner/delinquent, being heard afresh by the appellate authority. Obviously, then fresh orders would have to be rendered by the appellate Authority. It is also obvious, that, if, the petitioner/delinquent, is, aggrieved by the order already rendered by the appellate authority, and, in case, he, chooses to be re-heard, before the appellate authority, necessitating a fresh decision, which in case, is, taken, is adverse to him, he shall have a right to approach this Court again.

With the above observations, present petition stands disposed of, as also, pending applications, if any.