SUSHIL CHANDRA CHATURVEDI Vs. SANYUKTA KSHETTRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager in Sanyukta Kshettriya Gramin Bank, Mau was charged for abuse of delegated lending powers despite the instructions/rules issued by the Head Office, disregarding the rules and regulations while sanctioning/disbursing the loan and also purposely doing the act detrimental to the office of the Bank, acting as unbecoming officer of the Bank and also not abiding the Regulation 19 of Staff Service Regulations, 1980. The enquiry officer Sri M.N. Ojha conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority exonerating the petitioner from all charges as none of the charges were proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority after perusing the document as well as the deposition of the witnesses during the enquiry disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer pertaining to the charges levelled against the petitioner, and passed an order of punishment stopping one annual increment with cumulative effect and he was made responsible for the losses suffered by the bank. The disciplinary authority further directed that although the petitioner shall be reinstated but his period of suspension will be treated as period not on duty, meaning thereby that there was a forfeiture of salary excluding the allowances which would be paid to him and as that period would not be treated as on duty, his increment if became due would not be given.

(2.) The petitioner being aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal before the Board. The Board after considering the appeal of the petitioner passed a resolution agreeing with the decision of the disciplinary authority. Neither the charges against the petitioner were mentioned nor the evidence adduced was discussed in the said decision by the disciplinary authority. Even this has also not been mentioned that the charges stood proved against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence. No reason has been indicated agreeing with the decision of the disciplinary authority and rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

(3.) The question as to whether it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to have drawn the attention of the delinquent that the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the report of the enquiry officer intended to impose punishment or not deserves consideration.