Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008
The learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.10392 of 2003 dt.18-05-2018
5/9
counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 2SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi
v. Punjab National Bank and ors.) to contend that mere production
of documents is not enough and contents of the documentary evidence
has to be proved by examining witnesses, which has not been done in
the present case. The learned counsel has also referred to the letter of
the Sr. Regional Manager, Regional office, Patna, the disciplinary
authority who has passed the impugned order of punishment dated
06.11.2000, written to the Chief Vigilance Officer (Vigilance Cell) to
contend that the said disciplinary authority has himself admitted that
Inquiry Officer was biased to some extent. Thus, it is submitted that
once the disciplinary authority himself has accepted that the Inquiry
Officer was biased, the said inquiry report cannot be relied upon for
the purposes of inflicting punishment on the petitioner herein. Lastly,
it is submitted that the Senior Regional Manager, the disciplinary
authority of the petitioner herein, vide his letter dated 18.09.2000 had
written to the Chief Vigilance Officer (Vigilance cell), observing
therein that since there is no complaint against the petitioner regarding
his behaviour as a Bank employee, the punishment of removal from
service is too harsh, hence it is proposed to award punishment of
stopping of six future increments, but nonetheless, despite the said
observation of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.10392 of 2003 dt.18-05-2018
6/9
inflicted with the punishment of removal from service.