1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 4358 of 1984 dated 27.02.1986 whereby, the said suit came to be dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant was initially serving as Godown Keeper and from time to time he was promoted. In the year 1973, the appellant was promoted to the cadre of Officer Grade - II. The appellant was served with the charge sheet dated 20.01.1978 by the defendant-Bank alleging that he had not deposited a sum of Rs.200/- in the P.P.F. Account of Shri R. V. Shah. It is the case of the appellant that in spite of the explanation tendered to the Bank, the respondent-Bank initiated departmental inquiry against the appellant. Pursuant to the report of the Inquiry Officer, the defendant-Bank addressed a letter dated 16.04.1980 conveying that the appellant was guilty of mis-conduct alleged against him. In the said letter order of dismissal from the service with immediate effect was also passed.
2.3. Being aggrieved by the said order of removal from the service, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority of the Bank whereby the punishment of removal from service was confirmed vide order dated 08.10.1980. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant filed an application for review as provided under the Rules. However, vide letter dated 20.01.1981, the defendant-Bank informed the appellant that no fresh point for consideration has been made out and as such the same did not merit of being placed before the Executive Committee of the Central Board.
2.4 Being aggrieved by the order of removal from the service, the appellant filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 4358 of 1984 praying for declaration and reinstatement. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the said suit. Hence this appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. While appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court has recorded the finding that in the charge at Exhibit-30, a separate paragraph had been incorporated wherein the allegations are made against the appellant and the same had been done in accordance with the relevant Rules. Thus, it cannot be said that the statement of allegations is not disclosed to the appellant. It is pertinent to note that that one Shri V. K. Mehta was allowed to cross-examine the witness for the department. Not only that from the record produced at Exhibit-58 the defence representative was also given sufficient time to prepare himself for cross-examining the witnesses. Thus, reasonable opportunity was afforded to the appellant to defend his case.
4. The trial Court has further recorded a finding that all the documents were supplied to the representative of the delinquent and that he had cross-examined the witnesses and therefore, it is clear that the authorities before passing the order of dismissal had given reasonable opportunity to defend his case. Moreover, departmental inquiry was held and therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Having gone through the records of the case, I find that the Court below has not committed any illegality or impropriety warranting interference of this Court in this appeal. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at in the impugned order and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
However, at this stage, Mr. Popat, learned counsel for the appellant states that it was not his department and therefore some sympathy may be shown by converting the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement. Looking to the allegations levelled against the appellant and when there is a question of trust put forward by the employer, in such case, no sympathy is required to be shown. Hence, the said request is rejected.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top