SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging initiation of an enquiry proceeding and the orders passed in connection with the same, the petitioner, Sushil Kumar Saha, approached this Court with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Grievances of the petitioner, as ventilated, may briefly be stated as follows : The petitioner was appointed as Field Officer under the respondent/ United Commercial Bank on 11th November, 1978. In August, 2005, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Officer of the said banks. On 23rd March, 2006, he was served with a show cause notice issued by the Chief Officer, UCO Bank. He replied to the same on 17th April, 2006. On 15th December, 2006, charge sheet was issued by the Assistant General Manager (Disciplinary Authority), UCO Bank. The petitioner submitted his written statement on 17th January, 2007. On 9th February, 2007, letter intimating initiation of departmental proceeding was issued by the AGM and the notification was issued in that regard. Sri Hazra, Enquiry Officer, issued letter dated 24th February, 2007 fixing the date of hearing as on 7th of March, 2007. On 28th February, 2007, the Presenting Officer submitted a written brief and this was followed by the petitioner, who submitted such brief to the Enquiry Officer on 29th February, 2007. On 18th March, 2008, letter along with report of enquiry officer was issued by respondent No. 4. The petitioner submitted a representation on 28th March, 2008. Respondent No. 4 passed final order on 19th April, 2008 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 28th May, 2008. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 20th May, 2008. The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal by order dated 22nd July, 2008 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 5th August, 2008.

(3.) The petitioner, by filing such application, challenged the validity of initiation of the disciplinary proceeding and/or issuance of charge sheet and imposition of punishment of dismissal from service by the Assistant General Manager. The petitioner claimed that under the statutory provision, the Assistant General Manager had no power, competence and jurisdiction to issue the charge sheet against the petitioner and to pass a final order of dismissal from service.