Pramod Kumar. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.

[aftab alam ; r.m. lodha, jj.] the respondent worked in the appellant-bank as cashier-cum-clerk. the enquiry was first fixed on november 15, 1994 but on that date the respondent did not appear without giving any intimation to the enquiry officer. due to his non- appearance the enquiry was adjourned to november 28, 1994. after recording his evidence, the enquiry officer closed the enquiry and submitted his report holding the respondent guilty of all the charges. the industrial tribunal found and held that the domestic enquiry held against the respondent suffered from violation of the principles of natural justice. it appears that from the bank this letter was not handed over to the enquiry officer. admittedly, the respondent had not appeared for the enquiry on two earlier dates. in those circumstances and having regard to the fact that the witness intended to be examined by the management in support of the charge had come in connection with that enquiry from delhi to dehradun for the third time, the enquiry officer decided to proceed with the enquiry and examine him ex parte. pw.1 happened to be the branch manager where the respondent was posted at the material time and where the misappropriation was committed by him.1. the petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceedings including the order dated 2.4.2004 passed in complaint case no. 118 (c) of 2004 by which cognizance has been taken for offence under sections 448, 452, 375 and 504 of the indian penal code.2. by an order dated 20.9.2004, the opposite party no. 2 was noticed and, thereafter on 18.5.2005, the matter was admitted for hearing with an interim order of stay of further proceedings in the court below.3. today, neither of the parties is present in the court.4. however, on going through the records of the case, i find that the background of the case is that on 13.2.2004 a clash between two groups of students had taken place, so to bring the situation under control, the police chased the miscreants in course of which one boy fell down but tried to intimidate the police officers stating that he was son of a judicial officer for which danapur p.s. case no. 79 of 2004 dated 13.2.2004 had been instituted. on 18.2.2004 the miscreants repeated some antisocial activities due to which the petitioner, who was the officer-in-charge, danapur, instituted danapur p.s. case no. 86 of 2004 dated 18.2.2004. thereafter, on 19.2.2004, the opposite party no. 2 instituted a case stating therein that her son had been brutally assaulted by the petitioner and others after committing house trespass in her absence and, therefore, he was criminally liable. the matter was brought to the notice of this court vide or. cr. misc. 5 of 2004 which was heard by a division bench and on 27.2.2004. after hearing the parties, an adverse comment had been made on the failure of the police to institute a case on the intimation furnished by the opposite party no. 2, but, no positive order was passed except that the matter should proceed in accordance with law.5. in the meanwhile, it appears that the city s.p. made an enquiry into the matter and he found the version of the petitioner to be correct.6. considering that there are enough documents to show that the.....