M S RANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, M.S. Rana has appeared in person and made his submissions in support of the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the Bank, Respondents No. 2 and 3 has also been heard.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 5.8.2004, passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting punishment of removal of the Petitioner, who was working as Officer M.M.G./Scale S-3 in the Bank of Baroda. The appellate order dated 15.2.2005 dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner has also been prayed to be quashed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, which emerged from the pleadings of the parties are; the Petitioner from 27.11.2000 to 13.6.2002 was posted as Senior Branch Manager M.M.G.-3 at Rampur Branch of Bank of Baroda from where he was transferred to Agra. By order dated 19.6.2002, the Petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry. A memorandum dated June 6, 2003 was issued containing articles of charges and statements of allegations. Articles of charges included charges in 5 heads in support of which allegations 1 (a) to 1 (i) and 2 were mentioned in the memorandum. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Senior Manager, Zonal-6, Bareilly as Inquiring Authority. By order dated 2.7.2003, one Mr. Pradeep Kumar Goel was appointed as Presenting Officer on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. The inquiry commenced on 21.7.2003. In the inquiry on behalf of the Management documents E-1 to M.E.-130/1 were submitted. A defence representative was also appointed to defend the Petitioner. The defence also listed large number of documents D.E.-1 to D.E.-62A. No oral evidence was led on behalf of either of the parties. A written brief was submitted by the Presenting Officer on 30.10.2003 before the Enquiry Officer in which all the allegations were claimed to be proved from the evidence on record except allegations 1(b), 1(d) and 1(e). A written brief on behalf of the Petitioner was also submitted on 3.12.2003. The Enquiry Officer after considering the materials on record and considering the written brief submitted by the Presenting Officer as well as by the Petitioner, submitted his enquiry report dated 30.12.2003. The Enquiry Officer held the allegations 1(a), 1(g), 1(h), 1(i) and 2 proved. The Enquiry Officer held that allegations 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e) and 1(f) were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued an order on 31.3.2004 accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of all the allegations and charges found proved except the allegations 1(d), 1(e) and 1(f) and charge (iv) and (v). The Disciplinary Authority stated that in view of the fact that sufficient evidence exists on record to prove the allegations 1(d), 1(e), 1(f) and charge No. (iv) and (v), a notice was issued proposing to reassess the aforesaid allegations which were not found to be proved in terms of the Regulations 7(2) of Bank of Baroda Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations'). 19.4.2004 was fixed by the aforesaid order dated 31.3.2004. The Petitioner could not appear on 19.4.2004 and prayed for adjournment on the ground of his illness. Again four further dates were fixed but the Petitioner could not appear before the Disciplinary Authority. By order dated 10.6.2004, the Disciplinary Authority informed the Petitioner to submit a written representation, if he so desired. The Petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 16.6.2004 to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer holding the charges proved as well as to the findings which were proposed to be substituted by the Disciplinary Authority by his letter dated 31.3.2004. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 6.7.2004 substituting the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to allegations 1(d), 1(e), 1(f) and held the allegations 1(a), 1(d), 1(e) and 1(f) as well as charge No. (iv) proved. The aforesaid finding was recorded in the order dated 6.7.2004. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter passed an order dated 5.8.2004, holding the various allegations as contained in Memorandum dated 6.6.2003 and all the 5 charges proved. The order of punishment removing the Petitioner was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner filed an appeal dated 10.9.2004. The appeal filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed by order dated 15.2.2005. This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid two orders dated 15.2.2005 and 5.8.2004.