SAIBAL ROY Vs. UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the impugned order of punishment of removal from service dtd. 11/10/2014, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Cashier cum Clerk in Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (UBKGB) on 26/2/1992. On and from 26/12/2007, the petitioner fell sick and intimated the competent authority. After obtaining fitness certificate dtd. 9/1/2010, the petitioner requested the Chairman of UBKGB to allow him to join service. Despite receiving the request letter dtd. 10/1/2010, nothing has been done. On the contrary, on 25/4/2013, a charge sheet was issued by the Chairman in contravention of the provision of Regulation 2(g), 5(1) and 23. A departmental enquiry was commenced and concluded after exchanging the written arguments by the Presenting Officer and the petitioner and findings of the Enquiry Officer was served on the petitioner. The petitioner replied on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, proposed punishment order was served upon the petitioner. On receipt of the proposed punishment order, the petitioner submitted his written submission before the Chairman for consideration. Since the petitioner was not allowed to join, the petitioner had filed WPA No.27671 of 2022 before this Court which was subsequently transferred to the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and renumbered as WPA No.37 of 2023. On 6/1/2023, the said writ petition was dismissed with an observation that if the petitioner desires to challenge the administrative order dtd. 11/10/2014, he can do so in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that while working as Office Assistant, Darjeeling Judge Bazar Branch of the UBKGB, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice for his absence from the branch since 26/12/2007 to 10/12/2012 without having proper permission. The petitioner was considered to have the habit of remaining absent for long period without obtaining any prior permission from his higher authority. On 17/12/2012, the petitioner replied to the show cause notice where he failed to justify his leave of absence. Thereafter, on 15/3/2013, a second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner calling for an explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. The petitioner has submitted his explanation dtd. 28/3/2013 without any justification against his leave of absence. Finding the reply of the petitioner unsatisfactory, proposed to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dtd. 25/4/2013 as per Regulation Nos.18, 23 and 24 of Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 attracting penalties under Regulation 39. In exercise of power conferred under Regulation 41, the respondent bank appointed Sri Anoj Kumar Roy, Branch Manager of Salugara Branch as an Enquiry Officer and after concluding the disciplinary proceeding, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dtd. 23/6/2014. Upon considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the argument of the Presenting Officer as well as the petitioner, the disciplinary authority concluded that charge nos.(i) and (ii) were proved against the petitioner. Before infliction of any punishment, for the sake of natural justice, the petitioner was given a fair chance for hearing wherein the proposed punishment was conveyed through an order dtd. 13/8/2014, against which, the petitioner has filed review petition. However, he has not shown any interest to know the outcome of the review petition. After considering the review petition, final order dtd. 11/10/2014 was passed against the petitioner wherein he was found guilty of the charges and removed him from service and the said order was duly communicated to the petitioner.However, the same was returned to the bank with a postal remark "unclaimed", which as per General Clauses Act considered to be good service in the eyes of law. The copies of final order and the administrative order were also displayed on the Branch notice board for information of the concerned person.