PRAMOD DHANODKAR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed under section 2(1) of M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing judgment dated 5-9-2007 by the Single Bench in W.P. No. 1615/2000. The appellant had challenged order dated 21-3-1998 Annexure P-20 before the Writ Court by which petitioner was found guilty in departmental inquiry and compulsorily retired from service; the appellate order dated 16-11- 1998 Annexure P-22, by which the punishment was modified by the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, holding that the Appellate Authority had considered the quantum of punishment, modified it and in such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the writ jurisdiction.

(2.) BEFORE considering the contentions of parties it would be appropriate if factual position in the case is stated in brief. The petitioner was working as Senior Manager, MM Grade III scale with the respondents and was appointed as District Co-ordinator at District Co-ordinator Office of respondents Punjab National Bank in its Chhindwara branch. The petitioner joined his duty on 10-6-1997 at Chhindwara. The petitioners sitting in the office was near toilet and as per the petitioner it was a dirty, damp and unhygienic place. The petitioner had made various representations/ complaints to the Regional Manager of the Bank and also made a request for arranging an alternative and suitable accommodation. The petitioner, being a senior officer of the respondent/Bank, on the basis of Power of Attorney, Annexure P-9 executed by the Bank in his favour, had hired another office premises, suitable to the office. The petitioner after setting the accommodation, shifted the office on 14-6-1997, after working hours of the day and the office was to be reopened at a new place on 16-6-1997 at 10 A.M. On 14-6-1997 the Bank Manager Shri S. K. Upadhyay had communicated about the lease obtained by the appellant and shifting of office to another place to the Regional Manager at Jabalpur. On 16-6-1997 the Branch Manager as per the instructions received from Regional Manager had communicated to the appellant at 7 a.m. that the appellant should not shift the office without the written permission of Regional Manager. The petitioner who had already shifted the accommodation on 14-6- 1997 had intimated in writing to the Regional Manager, Jabalpur about his shifting of office temporarily subject to final arrangement by the Higher authorities in due course of time. An amount of Rs. 900/- p.m., rent was settled by the petitioner for the new accommodation. On 16-6-1997 itself, the Regional Manager had suspended petitioner in respect of his conduct of shifting of office without seeking prior permission and D.E., was initiated against the petitioner.

(3.) FROM the perusal of enquiry report, it appears that against the appellant charges No. 1, 2, 3(b) were found proved and charge No. 3(a) was not proved. In short the charges against the appellant were as under :-