Punjab National Bank &

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:­

(i) Your Lordships, may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order of the respondent No.2­Bank without disqualification for future employment and the impugned order of the respondent No.3 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner by issuing the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction;

(ii) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to reinstate the petitioner in the services of the respondent­Bank with continuity of service and with all incidental benefits as if he was not at all suspended from the services and removed from the services by the penal order;

(iii) xxx

(iv) xxx”

2. The short facts leading of filing of this petition are that the petitioner was serving in the executive cadre of the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank, which amalgamated with the respondent­Bank. Vide order dated 17.11.1987 the petitioner become employees of the Punjab National Bank. It has also been mentioned in the order that since the allegations of misconduct exist against the petitioner while in service of the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank, it has been decided to place the petitioner under suspension, pending the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents before this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application. This court vide order dated 22.4.1988 directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings immediately.

2.1. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued two charge­ sheets against the petitioner. The petitioner vide his letter dated 22.2.1987 requested the respondents to provide relevant documents. However, the respondents not supplied the said documents. The respondents appointed Inquiry Officer to inquire the matter. After the Inquiry, the Inquiring officer submitted his Inquiry Report and on the basis of which, the respondent No.2 on 30.3.1989 passed the order of penalty of removing the petitioner from the services of the bank. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.3. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide an order dated 11.12.1989. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a preliminary contention that without following the due procedure, the respondents imposed the penalty to the petitioner. He further contended that under the Rules it is mandatory to supply the Inquiry report to the petitioner before imposing any penalty. However, the same was not done by the respondents before imposing penalty.

4. Learned advocate for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the said fact.

5. I have heard learned advocates for both the parties and perused the material on record. It is an admitted position on record that the respondents have not followed the procedure of law while passing the impugned order. The respondents ought to have supplied the Inquiry Report to the petitioner before imposing the punishment, which is mandatory under the provisions of law. However, the same was not done by the respondents. Therefore, only on the ground that the respondents have not supplied the Inquiry Report to the petitioner, the matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority with liberty to initiate fresh inquiry after supplying of Inquiry Report to the petitioner. It is made clear that the said exercise be completed within a period of six months from the date of initiation of inquiry proceedings, failing which the respondents will pay all retiral dues to the petitioner. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter.

6. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.

[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan