KISHORE Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a dismissed Branch Manager and has assailed that dismissal in present Writ Petition on following 5 counts; First contention is, charge-sheet as also punishment has not been inflicted by the Competent Authority; Second contention is, there was no show cause notice issued about proposed punishment; Third ground of attack is, regulation under which departmental enquiry has been conducted does not have statutory sanction; Fourth ground is, comments forwarded to the Appellate Authority by the Disciplinary Authority on appeal of petitioner were not served upon the petitioner, and last and Fifth contention is, in any case looking to the nature of misconduct proved, punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate.

(2.) Perusal of order of punishment dated 3-5-1993 shows that for charge No. 1, punishment of dismissal from service has been inflicted and for charge No. 2 reduction in time scale by 5 stages i.e. from stage of Rs. 3540/- to stage of Rs. 3060/- in pay scale has been ordered. The Regional Manager and Disciplinary Authority has in this final order also mentioned that all punishments are to run concurrently.

(3.) The contention of Ms. K. K. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is, that the disciplinary authority who has taken action against the petitioner by issuing charge-sheet and ultimately by inflicting punishment is Regional Manager and as said Authority is subordinate to the appointing authority of petitioner, the initiation as also result thereof is adversely affected. It is contended that, this ground was specifically raised in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the final order, but then, the Appellate Authority i.e. the Assistant General Manager has not considered the said ground at all. For this purpose, our attention has been invited to the relevant clauses in the discipline and appeal regulation for officers of Bank of Maharashtra framed in 1976. It is further stated that the disciplinary authority has on 10-6-1993 supplied copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, but then it was after accepting the finding of the enquiry officer and petitioner was given opportunity to show as to why those findings should not be accepted for imposing punishment. However, there was no mention of quantum of punishment in the said communication, and hence petitioner did not get opportunity to submit representation about the proposed punishment, and hence punishment is unsustainable.