NIRAKAR SAHOO Vs. DHENKANAL GRAMYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 10.9.1996 (Annexure -6) made by the appellate authority imposing penalty of lowering his basic pay by five stages in his incremental scale in modification of the penalty of lowering the basic pay to the minimum of the officers scale passed by the disciplinary authority in a departmental proceeding.

(2.) THE petitioner while serving as Manager, Dhenkanal Gramya Bank, Babandha Branch, was served with a set of charges which are as follows : (i) He had raised a loan of Rs.5000/ - on 10.2.1990 in the name of one Bula Kishore Sahoo, son of Nibaran Sahoo of village Raibal by forging his signature on the loan documents of Small loan (General) 5/90 for the purpose of paddy processing and availed the proceeds of the said loan for himself. After complaint was lodged by Bula Kishore Sahoo, he managed to close the loan account on 15.2.1993 through him. (ii) He sanctioned small loan on 6.10.1989 for Rs.5000/ - to one minor Pruthiraj Sahoo for the purpose of paddy processing to derive pecuniary advantage. (iii) He provided debt relief to four lessees under the head 'Asset lost without conducting verification of assets. The above charge -sheet was communicated to him by letter dated 11.5.1994 (Annexure -3) and he was called upon to submit his written explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 1.6.1994 denying the charges. As the explanation was not satisfactory, one R.N. Parida was appointed as Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report exonerating the petitioner from charge No.3 and holding him guilty of charge Nos.1 and 3. The Chairman, Dhenkanal Gramya Bank, who is the disciplinary authority, on perusal of the enquiry report agreed with the findings and imposed the penalty of lowering the petitioners basic pay to the minimum of his scale by office order dated 28.3.1995 (Annexure -4). Against the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority which after considering the matter reduced the penalty of lowering his basic pay to the minimum of his scale to 'lowering the basic pay by 5 stages in his incremental scale.

(3.) LET us proceed to consider each of the above contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Contention No. (A) : Sub -regulation (3) of Regulation 30 of the Dhenkanal Gramya Bank (Staff) Service Regulation, 1982 provides as follows : "(3). The inquiry under this regulation and the procedure with the exception of the final order, may be delegated in case the person against whom proceeding are taken is an officer to any officer who is in a grade higher than such officer and in the case of an employee to any officer. For purpose of the inquiry, the officer or the employee may not engage a legal practitioner." From the above provision, it may be seen that the disciplinary authority may delegate the task of enquiry to an officer who is in a grade higher than the delinquent. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Enquiry Officer (R.N. Parida) is senior to the petitioner in the same grade, their positions being at Sl. No.2 and Sl.No.17 respectively. It is true that the disciplinary authority may delegate the enquiry to an officer of higher grade than that of the delinquent. The said provision is not, however, mandatory. It also does not lay down that in case of its violation, to proceeding would be vitiated. Admittedly, the petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry Officer and voluntarily participated in the proceeding. After the closure of the enquiry when the enquiry report went against him, he cannot be allowed to contend that the appointment of Enquiry Officer was illegal. It is a question of prejudice and the petitioner has not been able to show how he was prejudiced in the enquiry because of appointment of R.N. Parida as the Enquiry Officer see (Sridhar Chand v. State of Orissa, 44 (1977) C.L.T. 126). For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this contention.