RABI LOCHAN GHOSH Vs. PASCHIM BANGA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In invocation of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has called in question the sustainability of the charge-sheet vide. no. PGDB/HO/CM/95/12-13 dtd. 4/10/2012 and order of punishment dtd. 19/3/2014, both passed by the Chairman and Competent Authority, Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (in short, PBGB). Facts as unfurled in the writ petition are that the petitioner joined as Filed Supervisor in Howrah Gramin Bank on 15/1/1985 and on 1/12/1990, he was promoted to the post of Scale-I Officer and subsequently, he was further promoted to Scale-II Officer.

(2.) Howrah Gramin Bank, Burdwan Gramin Bank and Mayurakshi Gramin Bank were constituted under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 and by virtue of a notification vide. dtd. 26/2/2007, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs ( Banking Divn.), aforesaid three banks were amalgamated to a single bank, namely, PBGB and the service conditions of the Officers and employees of the PBGB were governed by the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010.

(3.) While the writ petitioner was rending his service as Scale-II officer at Moloypur Branch, on 22/8/12 at night, one incident of theft/burglary took place in that branch and on receipt of such information, he rushed to the branch and upon instruction of his superior officers, he lodged an F.I.R. which gave rise to Arambagh P.S. Case no. 595/12 dtd. 23/8/2012 under Ss. 457/380 IPC. On 25/8/2012, the Chairman concerned by issuing one show cause notice sought for explanation for retention of excess cash in Moloypur Branch and the writ petitioner submitted his explanation on 10/9/2012 but by passing an order dtd. 1/1/2012, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Under a memo. vide. no. 4/10/2012, a charge-sheet containing statement of allegations and articles of charges was issued holding that the explanation and/or reply dtd. 10/9/2012 was not found satisfactory. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 11/10/2012.