submitted that during the course of hearing of departmental proceeding the presenting officer produced 52 documents, Exhibit- 1 to Exhibit -52, and directed the charged officer/ the original petitioner to inspect the documents but no document was given to him for proper inspection and no sufficient time was allowed to the charged officer to present his defence. Rule 10 (a) and (b) of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Allahabad Bank Officer Employees’ Regulation, 1976) clearly mandates the enquiry authority as to how the enquiry shall be conducted. Rule 10(b) (i) says that the enquiry officer shall direct the charged officer to inspect the documents within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as the inquiring authority may allow the documents listed but the enquiry officer only directed the charged officer to inspect the voluminous documents, Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-52 , which were produced after initiation of the departmental proceeding and he was coerced to give certificate of inspection. The enquiry officer is obliged to give five days time or even further time for inspecting the entire documents by the charged officer but no proper time was given to him and, therefore, the order passed by the enquiry officer is in violation of Rule 10 (b) of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees’ Regulation, 1976 and, hence, the enquiry report is vitiated and the order of punishment passed on the basis of such enquiry report is also vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice.
