AJAY HARIHARNO Vs. UP MAHAPRABANDHAK / APEALIYA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been primarily filed challenging the order Annexure (P-5) dated 26.02.2016. The present is a second round of litigation. The petitioner on an earlier round of litigation had challenged the order of termination and order of suspension and rejection of the appeal by departmental appellate authority vide writ petition No. 250/2012. The said writ petition finally stood disposed off on 20.11.2015 and High Court disposed off the writ petition in the following terms, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinunder :-

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition is that the petitioner while working as Senior Assistant at Branch, Bemetara of the respondent- State Bank Of India was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on certain charges of serious misconduct. The petitioner was issued with a charge- sheet on 07.07.2010. The petitioner thereafter replied to the same on 17.07.2010. Not satisfied with the reply/explanation provided by the petitioner, respondents took a decision of conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner. An enquiry officer was appointed in this regard who in turn submitted his report on 03.02.2011. The enquiry officer found Charge No. 1 & Charge No. 3 to have been proved and charge No. 2 to have been partly proved. The petitioner thereafter issued with a second show cause notice to which also petitioner submitted his explanation and relying upon the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 22.07.2011 dismissed the petitioner from the services of the respondent Bank.

(3.) The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal against the order of dismissal from service and the appellate authority also vide order dated 28.11.2011 rejected the appeal of the petitioner and in the process affirmed the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner challenged the order of disciplinary authority as well as the order of appellate authority vide Writ petition No. 2520/2012 which was partly allowed and disposed off on 20.11.2015. The relevant portion of which has already been reproduced in the initial paragraphs of this judgment. Subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition the matter was placed again before appellate authority to take a decision in the light of the order passed by High Court on 20.11.2015. The appellate authority after due consideration of the directives given by this Court and also taking note of the factual matrix of the case as it came before the enquiry officer during the course of the enquiry have passed an impugned order on 26.02.2016 modifying the order of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner and looking to the misconduct so committed by him imposed the punishment of Removal from service with all superannuation benefits i. e. Pension or Provident fund and Gratuity with disqualification from further employment. Though, the petitioner-in-person had argued on various grounds assailing the impugned order but the crux of the appeal was to the effect that the appellate authority concerned have not properly appreciated the evidence which have come on record. Likewise, it was also argued that the finding of the disciplinary authority as also the finding of the enquiry officer in the enquiry report were contrary to the evidence and as such was a perverse finding of fact. The petitioner also tried to canvass the aspect that since the High Court on earlier round of litigation charge No. 2 & Charge No. 3 have not been proved or established. Charge No. 1 not being that grievous a misconduct, the authorities ought to have recalled the order of dismissal and should have inflicted the petitioner with a lesser punishment. It was also the contention of the petitioner that the appellate authority ought to have considered the entire service record of the petitioner while determining whether it was necessary to inflict the petitioner with a punishment of dismissal from service.