RAMESH CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who at the relevant time was Assistant Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, Branch Padrauna, has come up with a prayer to quash the Final Order dated November 3, 1993 of the Disciplinary Authority (as contained in Annexure 11) in respect of Departmental enquiry regarding charge-sheet dated December 2, 1991 awarding consolidated punishment of discharge from service in terms of Regulation 4(g) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 with immediate effect and the Appellate Order dated June 25, 1994 (as contained in Annexure-15) dismissing his appeal, preferred against the order aforementioned.

(2.) Some brief relevant facts: vide Memorandum dated December 2, 1991 of the Regional Office, Gorakhpur of the Bank (as contained in Annexure-5), the petitioner was informed of holding of a departmental enquiry against him in regard to the article of charges as contained in Annexure-1 thereto and statement of imputations of misconduct in support of article of charges as enclosed in Annexure-11 thereto asking him to submit his written statement in defence. A perusal of Annexure-5 shows that five charges, enumerated in Annexure 11 were framed. Vide his written statement (as contained in Annexure-6) the petitioner denied the charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted a Report dated March 31, 1993 (as contained in Annexure-8A). Its perusal shows as follows: (i) Charge No. 1, not proved; (ii) Charge No. 2 proved up to the extent that CSO has altered the entry of Rs. 800 without verification, etc., but is not found guilty of withdrawing Rs. 800 fraudulently, and thus, this part of the charge not proved; (iii) Charge No. 3 proved to the extent that CSO has posted the voucher/cheque in wrong account, but mala fide intention has not been proved; (iv) Charge No. 4. He is found guilty of passing his own conveyance bill without any power. But the other part of the charge that he derived undue pecuniary benefit could not be proved, (v) Charge No. 5-CSO has been found guilty for abusing his official position. Thereafter, the petitioner was given a show cause notice (as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition) along with the findings of the Enquiry Officer mentioned as above. A perusal of Annexure-8 does not show that the Disciplinary Authority intended to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner filed his comments/reply to the show cause notice (as contained in Annexure-9). The petitioner filed a representation (as contained in Annexure - 10) requesting to change the Disciplinary authority for the reasons stated therein.

(3.) A perusal of Annexure-11 shows that the Disciplinary Authority without precisely recording any reason to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the charges as of very serious nature and awarded following punishments in relation to the charges in question: