J N DIVYA Vs. CHHATTISGARH GRAMIN BANKLABIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order of punishment dated 01.09.2011 passed by the Administrative Officer of the respondent Bank terminating the services of the petitioner. Challenge is also to the order dated 20.03.2012 whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed with the respondent Bank as Cashier-cum-Clerk and in due course of time he got promoted on the post of Officer Scale-I. While working on the post of Officer Scale-I, the petitioner was served with charge sheet on 06.08.1993 alleging major misconduct of committing irregularities in releasing the loan to the villagers under the Integrated Rural Development Programme (in short, IRDP). Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply and the reply being found unsatisfactory, the authorities ordered for holding departmental enquiry. After conducting departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. Based on the eqnuiry report, the impugned order of termination was passed and thereafter the appeal preferred also stood rejected leading to filing of present writ petition.

(3.) Challenge in this petition by the petitioner is on more than one grounds. The foremost contention of the petitioner is that the charges levelled against the petitioner was defective in as much as the charge sheet did not reflect the list of witnesses and list of documents which the respondents intended to rely upon against the petitioner. It was also the contention of the petitioner that even the entire enquriy proceedings initiated by the respondents is vitiated on account of utter violation of basic principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner has not been granted sufficient opportunity to defend his case all along and the respondents particularly the enquiry officer had been conducting himself in a predetermined manner to implicate the petitioner in the case.