SWAPAN KUMAR SAHA Vs. BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN 2 of 2020 is application for stay of operation of judgment and order dated 13th May, 2020 whereby applicant's writ petition was disposed of, confining him as entitled to challenge order of the disciplinary authority only on merits.

(2.) Prayers in the writ petition were, inter alia, for quashing of finding of enquiry officer on report dated 26th April, 2013 and punishment order dated 5th May, 2016, of disciplinary authority being the General Manager. Ms. Rao, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent reiterates, the appeal can be heard and disposed of on papers disclosed in the stay application. Accordingly all formalities are dispensed with including service of notice of appeal on respondent.

(3.) Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of applicant-appellant draws attention to Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, firstly, to clause (g) in definitions regulation 2. Said clause says 'competent authority' means the Chairman in respect of officer and the General Manager in respect of employees. The proviso is not relevant for our purpose. Secondly, to regulation 39 prescribing penalties. He draws attention to a proviso under major penalties requiring the order to be in writing and signed by the competent authority, as applicable to his client being an officer. Next he refers to regulations 49 and 50. Both officers and employees have right of appeal. In case of his client, appellate authority is the Board.