CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAGVENDRA RANJAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 2(1) of The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 28.06.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.3173/1997.

(2.) Relevant facts borne out from paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Judgment are that petitioner at the relevant time in the year 1995 was working as an Accountant Scale-1 in the Satna Branch of the respondents. He was placed under suspension on 4.2.1995 and, thereafter, two charge-sheets dated 20th of April, 1995 and 14th of September, 1995 were issued to him. In each of the charge-sheets, various allegations were levelled. As far as the first charge-sheet dated 20th April, 1995 is concerned, 6 charges were alleged in the said charge-sheet. Similarly, in the charge-sheet dated 14th September, 1995, 8 charges were levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and, therefore, a departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report separately with regard to both the charge-sheets. On the basis of the allegations allegedly proved in the charge-sheets, the disciplinary authority passed a final order separately with regard to both the charge-sheets. In the final orders passed as contained in Annexure-P10 & P11, the disciplinary authority indicated the charges, the findings recorded into the charge-sheets and imposed separate punishments for each of the charges. And, the punishments imposed by the disciplinary authority were in accordance with punishment prescribed under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation 1976. After indicating 14 punishments for 14 charges, two different punishment orders as indicated hereinabove were passed vide Annexure-P10 & P11 and in each of the punishment orders, penalty of Reduction of Pay by the four stages in the Time Scale was awarded.

(3.) That an appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 01.07.1997. The question raised before learned Single Judge was whether it was permissible under the Rules to have amalgamated minor and major penalties. The penalties imposed in respect of charge No.1 was "Reduction of Pay Scale by two stages in time scale. As to charge No.2 it was 'Reduction of Pay Scale by two stages in time scale." As to charge Nos.3 and 5 the penalty awarded was 'Censure'. Whereas for charge No.6 major penalty of "withholding of one increment with cumulative effect" was imposed. The disciplinary authority accordingly awarded the consolidated punishment of "Reduction of Pay Scale by four stages" under Regulation 4(e) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976.