BINDAPRASAD Vs. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent heard finally. Petitioner is working on the post of Clerk- cum- Cashier in the respondent Narmada -Malwa Gramin Bank. He was issued a notice dated 19.07.2006(Annexure P-l)to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him for the misconduct alleged against him in the said notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation vide reply dated 04.08.2006(Annexure P-2). Thereafter on 02.12.2008 a charge-sheet(Annexure P-3) was issued to him levelling charges of major misconduct against him. Aggrieved by the issuance of the charge-sheet and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the impugned charge-sheet has been issued by the General Manager of the respondent Bank whereas he was not an officer designated by the Chairman in terms of Section 2 (i) of Service Regulations, 2001. According to him the Competent Authority for taking disciplinary action against him is the officer designated by the Chairman as provided in Section 2 (i) of Service Regulations 2001. He submits that the General Manager who has issued the impugned charge-sheet has not been authorized or designated by the Chairman for the same. He has also challenged the issuance of the charge-sheet on the ground of delay. According to him after 2 years of the date of issuance of the show cause notice(Annenxure P-l)the charge-sheet(Annexure P-3) has been issued, in the circumstances the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay of 2/4 years.

(3.) The respondents have filed reply and have stated that in view of the Resolution dated 19.09.2006(Annexure R-l)passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank the Controller/Regional Officer/General Manager not below Scale-4 have been empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employees. In the circumstances issuance of the impugned charge-sheet by the General Manager on the basis of resolution dated 19.09.2006(AnnexureR-l) cannot be said to be by incompetent Authority. As regards delay it has been stated that there is no inordinate delay in issuance of the impugned charge-sheet. According to the respondents in the absence of any substantial delay and prejudice to the petitioner, he cannot be allowed to say that the delay in issuance of the charge-sheet vitiates the same.