Delhi High Court
Mr. Bharat Bhushan Goel vs Punjab National Bank & Ors. on 11 October, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3509/1999
% 11th October, 2013
MR. BHARAT BHUSHAN GOEL ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Kr. Aggarwal, Adv.
VERSUS
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the orders passed
by the departmental authority dated 12.9.1996 whereby the petitioner was
imposed a punishment of removal from services. This order was upheld by
the appellate authority in its order dated 31.12.1997. The admitted position
is that petitioner did not lead any evidence in the enquiry proceedings
whereas the management led evidence and proved the case as per the
charge-sheet. The issue therefore only is as to whether petitioner had
appropriate notice to appear in the departmental proceedings.
WPC 3509/1999 Page 1 of 4
2. In the present case, the first seven full scape pages in single
lines spacing of the enquiry officer's report show that at least around 20
dates were fixed for which intimation was given to the petitioner to appear.
Petitioner was regularly proceeded ex parte in spite of not appearing. In
spite of having been proceeded ex parte, enquiry officer took the pain of
regularly sending copies of the proceedings to the petitioner. Petitioner kept
on giving lame excuses of illness and which were not substantiated on most
occasions. Management completed evidence of its witnesses and thereafter
the enquiry officer gave his report holding the petitioner guilty. It may be
noted that enquiry was simultaneously conducted against the petitioner and
co-charged officer one Mr. B.L.Thapa. I am not reproducing the extensive
recordings given in the first seven pages of the enquiry report but on having
read them I find that thorough effort was made by the enquiry officer to give
the petitioner over at least a dozen, if not more, opportunities to participate
in the proceedings, cross examine the witnesses of the management and lead
his evidence but the petitioner failed to do so.
3. Once therefore the enquiry officer gave adequate opportunities
to the petitioner, who failed to appear and lead his evidence and the
management proved its case by leading evidence which included depositions
WPC 3509/1999 Page 2 of 4
of witnesses and documents, there is no scope whatsoever in a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the enquiry officer's
report and the orders of the departmental authorities passed thereupon.
4. I may note that there were serious charges against the petitioner
and Sh. B.L.Thapa. Allegations were that in a few dozen transactions, illegal
loans were given, collusion was there with the sellers and bribes were taken.
Entire chargesheet makes a telling reading of the lack of honesty on the part
of the petitioner, and which has been thoroughly proved in the departmental
proceedings.
5. The scope of hearing in a petition under Article 226 for
challenging the orders of the departmental authorities is limited. Orders of
departmental authorities can only be challenged if there is perversity in the
findings. If the management proves its case by depositions of its witnesses
and by filing of documents, and the petitioner does not even care to lead
evidence on his behalf or appear in the witness box and have conviction to
be cross examined, there is no reason why the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court for acting under Article 226 be invoked in favour of a person such
as the petitioner.
WPC 3509/1999 Page 3 of 4
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is
accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
OCTOBER 11, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
