NARMADA PRASAD CHOWDHARY Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an officer in Junior Management, Grade -I of Bank of India was proceeded in a disciplinary proceeding in respect of the following charges :

(2.) THE said charge -sheet, dated 16 -11 -2000, has been brought on record as Annexure -P/9. It is pertinent to mention here there was allegation that the petitioner violated the Regulations 3(1) and 24 of the Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. The petitioner filed his explanation and 'thereafter an enquiry officer was appointed. The presenting officer on behalf of the Management -Bank examined as many as six witnesses and certain documents were brought on record. On behalf of the delinquent officer five witnesses were examined and certain documents were pressed into service. The enquiry officer vide Annexure -P/27 furnished his report holding that the employer has been able to prove all the three charges against the delinquent officer. The disciplinary authority concurred with the said finding and imposed punishment of compulsory retirement as per Annexure -P/25. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal vide Annexure -P/29 which was rejected by the appellate authority as per Annexure -P/30. An application for review was filed which met with same fate. A mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner did not bear any fruit.

(3.) -5. Mr. Anoop Nair, Learned Counsel appearing for the Bank. Per contra, has contended that the evidence adduced to prove the charges against the petitioner is adequate and the rigour of proof in a criminal case is not applicable to a disciplinary proceeding. The Learned Counsel has submitted that an effort has been made to dissect the deposition of witnesses on the parameters of criminal jurisprudence which is not permissible, and moreso, when there is acceptable material on record. Hence, contended Mr. Nair, finding recorded by the enquiry officer and affirmation thereof by the disciplinary authority cannot be faulted. 6. Commenting on availing of transfer allowance it is contended by Mr. Nair that the petitioner had debited the amount to his account and the Bank was compelled to recover the same. It is also put forth by Mr. Nair that the petitioner was punished earlier and imposed a minor punishment and when delinquency continued the present punishment has been imposed. The Learned Counsel has also contended that the doctrine of proportionality is not attracted to the case at hand. 7. To appreciate the rivalised submissions raised at the Bar, I have carefully perused the inquiry report and the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. Mr. Nagu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of MW -3, who was the Manager of the Branch of the Berkhedi Branch after the petitioner. A portion of the evidence of the said witness is worth reproducing :