HARPRASAD MOHAPATRA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in W.P.(C) No.7282 of 2010, assails the initiation of the proceeding and charge, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. He further prays to quash Annexure-3, which happens to be the show cause notice, issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner on the proposed substitution of the findings of the Enquiry Officer with respect to Charge No.II. In W.P. (C) No.22771 of 2010 the petitioner assails the order of suspension.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, bereft of unnecessary details, is that he is a staff in the Bank of India and has completed twenty five years of continuous service. While he was continuing as a staff clerk in Puri Branch, he received the charge sheet dated 24.4.2009 consisting of four charges. He further alleges that the charge sheet was framed with malafide intention and official bias with a revengeful attitude because of the petitioner's union activities. The petitioner further pleads that all the four charges are vague, unspecific and are not definite which is apparent from the record of the enquiry and the document submitted by the opposite parties.

(3.) The opposite parties appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is pleaded that the petitioner is a staff clerk of the Bank of India, Puri Branch. He has been placed under suspension since 29.12.2009 for having misappropriating the customer's money/ public money to the tune of Rs.1,000/-. He has also been charged by the Disciplinary Authority vide charge sheet dated 24.4.2009. The disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent employee/petitioner in accordance with the procedure laid down in the bipartite settlement, after a proper enquiry, in which the petitioner and his defence representative actively participated. The Disciplinary Authority after having considered the representation of the petitioner on the findings of the Enquiry Officer vis- -vis on the substituted findings, issued a show cause notice for inflicting punishment and proposing therein a gross punishment of compulsory retirement. It is further pleaded that at this stage the petitioner has prayed the Court to quash the proceeding and charge as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. The opposite parties further plead that Annexure-3 is the notice to show cause, issued by the Disciplinary Authority, to the petitioner as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 19.12.2009 relating to Charge No.II shall not be substituted by the Disciplinary Authority. In the said show cause notice, the petitioner was advised to submit his reply/ representation in writing to the Disciplinary Authority within seven days of receipt of memorandum with regard to the Enquiry Officer's findings and the tentative reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority proposing substitution thereto in respect of Charge No.II. The opposite parties further plead that a mere notice of show cause or charge sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. Thus, the opposite parties challenged the maintainability of the writ petition at this stage.