RANJAN SARVATE Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was an officer in the respondent No.1 Bank, holding the post of Manager, has come before this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of penalty imposed after a departmental enquiry by which he has been reverted from the post of Middle Management Grade-II to the post of Junior Management Grade-I in the lower pay scale and order by which the appeal has been dismissed against such order of penalty.

(2.) IT is contended that the petitioner was appointed as Field Officer in Scale-I in the respondent Bank, was promoted on 10.12.2001 to Scale-II MMG Grade. The petitioner has to his credit unblemished service record. However, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner making allegation that the petitioner has committed certain misconduct for which an enquiry was required to be conducted. The petitioner filed the response to the charge- sheet and refuted the allegations made against him. The Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed by the Bank and the petitioner was provided a defence assistance. The enquiry was required to be conducted in terms of the provisions of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (herein after referred to as 'Regulations'). However, in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of the Regulations, enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted. The Disciplinary Authority initially proposed to impose a punishment of withholding of three increments and gave second opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Instead of adhering to the proposed punishment, a major penalty was imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority by the impugned order dated 05.03.2008. The petitioner preferred an appeal as provided under the Regulations but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, therefore, the petitioner was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is contended that the enquiry was not fairly conducted, petitioner was not granted due opportunity of defence in appropriate manner, no evidence was available on record to show that the petitioner was guilty of any such alleged misconduct, yet the penalty was imposed and the appeal against such penalty was not properly considered, therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.