BISTUPADA DAS Vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner prays for quashing of the Order dated 10. 8. 2005, as contained in annexure P-14, whereby and whereunder, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner with a further order that the entire period of suspension would be treated as such (period of suspension) and that nothing would be payable to him towards salary, allowances and consequential benefits, including annual increments, save and except the subsistence allowance already paid to him. The petitioner also prays for quashing the Order dated 18. 10. 2005, as contained in annexure P-16, whereby and whereunder, the Appellate Authority, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner, thereby upholding the Order of punishment of "dismissal from service without notice" imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) THE facts of this case are that while working as a Peon in the service Branch of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, situated on 14, N. S. Road, Kolkata, the Petitioner was put under suspension by an order dated 26. 5. 1997 (vide annexure P-1) issued by the Respondent No. 2 i. e. the Asst. General Manager being the Notified Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the disciplinary Authority) for the allegation of being involved in a criminal case purportedly registered on 22. 5. 1997 in the Hare Street Police station, Kolkata which was subsequently followed by his arrest on the same day. By reason of the order of suspension it was indicated that the said order will not affect the Bank's right to take disciplinary action against the petitioner in terms of the bipartite settlement.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the aforementioned criminal case, the petitioner received a Notice dated 7. 4. 2003 (as contained in annexure p-3) issued by the Disciplinary Authority whereby and whereunder, while referring to the incident which was the subject matter of the criminal case, he informed the petitioner that his acts were prejudicial to the bank's interests which had tarnished its image and that they were gross misconducts. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The relevant text of the said Order reads as follows: