SURAI MAJHI Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a member of the Santhal tribe (which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe) and a senior officer of Allahabad Bank (hereafter the Bank), has presented this writ petition feeling aggrieved by several orders passed by his superiors and seeks interference therewith.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is this. At the material time, the petitioner was the incumbent on the post of Senior Manager, Regional Office, Midnapore. In regard to certain incidents that prima facie amounted to misconduct, thereby warranting initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated August 20, 2003. Disciplinary proceedings followed soon thereafter. Chargesheet dated October 28, 2003 was issued. While disciplinary proceedings were continuing, an order dated November 20, 2013 was issued by the Assistant General Manager of the Bank, being the Competent Authority, revoking the order of suspension dated August 20, 2003 and directing the petitioner to report at the Regional Office, Dibrugarh, Assam. The petitioner represented against the order of transfer to Dibrugarh on several grounds, including the ground that ., and did not report thereat. Soon thereafter, order dated August 27, 2004 was passed, whereby the disciplinary authority of the petitioner having found the charges levelled against him vide charge-sheet dated October 28, 2003 proved, imposed the penalty of reduction in basic pay by two stages with cumulative effect in his present time scale of pay with the observation that he would earn usual increment on the anniversary date of his appointment. It was further observed therein that no pay and allowances would be paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance already paid to him. The order of penalty was carried by the petitioner in a departmental appeal before his appellate authority, i.e. the Deputy General Manager. The appeal was, however, not decided. Consequent upon the petitioner's refusal to report at Dibrugarh, as required by the order dated November 20, 2013, a further charge-sheet dated August 18, 2005 was issued by the petitioner's disciplinary authority, i.e. the Assistant General Manager. The charge was that despite revocation of the order of suspension dated August 20, 2003, and direction for reporting at Regional Office, Dibrugarh, as contained in the order dated November 20, 2003, the petitioner had not reported thereat and had been absenting himself without prior permission, which was in violation of Regulations 3(1), 3(2) and 13 of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereafter the Regulations) tantamounting to misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 thereof.

(3.) The first order impeached in the writ petition is the order dated November 20, 2003 whereby the petitioner was directed to report at Dibrugarh during the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, upon revocation of the order of suspension. The second order that has been assailed is the final order dated August 27, 2004 imposing the penalty of reduction in pay. Challenge has also been thrown to the charge-sheet dated August 18, 2005.