R K GUPTA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON account of certain acts of omission and commission, disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioner. Enquiry was held. The petitioner was found guilty. He preferred an appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. Copy of the order passed by the original authority is annexure P/9. The appellate order is annexure P/11. There is reduction of pay scale by two stages in the time scale. The original order as well as the appellate order are being challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that the enquiry proceedings have been taken in breach of a circular referred to para 5 of the petition. In this it is stated that whenever a memo is issued to an officer calling for his explanation and the same is not found satisfactory, a charge-sheet is required to be issued within a period of ten to fifteen days but not later than six months. It is non-compliance of this aspect which is being challenged in this petition. It is stated that the action was taken beyond the period referred to above, and therefore, the enquiry proceedings should be quashed. So far as the enquiry is concerned, the same is being challenged on the ground that the enquiring authority was prejudiced against the petitioner. It has also been argued that the list of witnesses was not given to the petitioner and additions and deletions in the list of witnesses has also been made subject-matter of challenge. It has also been commented upon with a view to contend that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner. The finding on merits has also been challenged. The allegations against the petitioner were that in the matter of releasing payments with regard to transactions which were subject-matter of charge No. 1, the petitioner failed to obtain bills and invoices and also did not verify whether the goods were actually delivered or not. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned the finding recorded is that no pre-sanction inspection was conducted by the petitioner. One of the charges pertains to the fact that there was no pre-sanction inspection carried out by the petitioner. This was found to be established. As indicated above, the punishment of reduction of pay in two stages was ordered and this is being challenged in the present petition.

(3.) IT be seen that merely because some instructions have been issued with regard to conducting an enquiry within a specified period and that was not done would not furnish any ground to challenge the same by the petitioner. Similar point was considered by a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagir Singh, Kanungo v. State of Punjab, (1993) 13 Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 525. There were Government instructions to the effect that the enquiry proceedings should be completed within a specified period. It was held that merely because this is not done within the specified period would not render the enquiry proceedings bad. It would not confer any additional right on the concerned employee. In para 3 it was observed as under :