ARUN SHRIVASTAVA Vs. RAIGARH REGIONAL RURAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of (Annexure P/29) dated 26.12.1989 which is a memo of appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority i.e., the Board of Directors. The memo of appeal cannot be challenged as the same is neither prejudicial to the petitioner nor is an order passed by some authority. Why, the petitioner has challenged the validity of his own memo of appeal, is beyond one's apprehension. Thus, challenge in respect to Annexure P/29, is rejected. Further challenge is to the order dated 27.11.1989 (Annexure P/32) whereunder, the petitioner was demoted from the post of Branch Manager to Area Supervisor, and the order dated 22.06.1990 (Annexure P/31) passed by the Board of Directors, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 27.11.1989 (Annexure P/32).

(2.) THE facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner, while working as Branch Manager at Bandarkuwa, during the period July 1986 to March, 1988, for certain acts of commission and omission, was placed under suspension by order dated 18.03.1988 in exercise of power under clause 4 of the Regulation, 30(4) of the Raigarh Kshetriya Gramin Bank Karmachari Vrind Sewa Viniyam (for short 'The Regulation'). The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 23.07.1988 (Annexure P/6). A preliminary enquiry was also held by the respondent authorities and thereafter, a full fledged enquiry was held, which resulted into passing of the impugned order demoting the petitioner from the post of Branch Manager to Area Supervisor. There against, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e., the Board of Directors, which was also dismissed affirming, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority i.e., the Board of Directors. The departmental enquiry was conducted in a fair manner providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case. Thus, there may be no interference with the orders impugned herein.