C PATTABHIRAMA SASTRY Vs. BANK OF BARODA BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an officer in Middle Management Grade Scale-II in the establishment of Bank of Baroda. The validity of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.ultimately culminating in imposition of the penalty of reduction by three stages in time scale in Middle Management Grade Scale-II with effect from 25-2-1989 at the hands of the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Bank, who is the reviewing authority under Regulation 18 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, for short D& A Regulations' is assailed in the writ petition. The petitioner has also sought for declaration that the action of the respondents in recovering the Professional Qualification Allowance (PQA) for the period from 1-7-1989 as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to continue the payment of PQA duly refunding the amounts already recovered.

(2.) The petitioner joined the service of the Bank as clerk on 16-4-1964 and he was confirmed in that cadre with effect from 16-10-1964. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to Junior Management Grade Scale-I with effect from 1-5-1971. Further, the petitioner was promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale-II with effect from 1-7-1979. The petitioner was serving as Branch Manager at Vellore between 11-7-1983 and 31-10-1984, and subsequently he was transferred to Visakhapatnam as Accountant and later to Nellore Branch. When the petitioner was serving in Nellore Branch of the Bank, he was served with the Memorandum of charge on 27-10-1987. Articles of Charge issued to the petitioner on 27-10-1987 read:

(3.) The third respondent after consideration of the findings recorded in theenquiry report accepted the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority and issued the office order dated 25-2-1989 imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower grade from M.M.G./S-II to JMG/S-I thereby reducing the basic pay of the petitioner from Rs.2,925/- per month in M.M.G./S-II to Rs.2,675/- per month in J.M.G./S-I with effect from the date of the order, as a disciplinary measure. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Regulation 17 of D & A Regulations to the second respondent, namely, the General Manager and Appellate Authority on 16-4-1989. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 8-9-1989 reduced the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by imposing the penalty of reduction by three stages in time scale with effect from the date of the appellate order, i.e., 8-y-1989. The petitioner not being satisfied with the appellate order submitted Review Petition on 1-2-1990 to the Vice-chairman and Managing Director of the Bank who is the Reviewing Authority under Regulation 18 of the D & A Regulations. The Reviewing Authority passed the order on 2-7-1991 further reducing the penalty and in substitution of the penalty imposed by the Appellate Authority, imposed the penalty of reduction by three stages in time scale in Middle Management Grade/Scale II with effect from 25-2-1989. From the records, it seems that the petitioner on 22-9-1993 submitted another Review Petition to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank requesting the latter to re-review the order made by the Reviewing Authority on 2-7-1991. That request of the petitioner was not acceded to by the Reviewing Authority on the ground that under the D & A Regulations there is no provision to re-review the order of the Reviewing Authority. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority.