SUBRAT KUMAR PIRI Vs. ODISHA GRAMYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who is working as Office Assistant at Ratei Branch with the Opposite Party No.1-Bank and is under suspension since 18/11/2014, has preferred the Writ Petition questioning the legality of Order passed by the Opposite Party No.2 in appointing the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer for conducting the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, so also continuance of the said proceeding simultaneously along with the criminal proceeding initiated against him for the same set of charges.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, which led the Petitioner to file the Writ Petition, is that, the Petitioner while working as Office Assistant at Ratei Branch, under the Opposite Party No.1-Bank, was put under suspension on 18. 11.2014 pending disciplinary action in connection with the incidence of fraud committed during his tenure. On 22. 12.2014, the Opposite Party No.2 lodged an F.I.R. with the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar based on the report of the Regional Manager, Balasore with regard to an incidence of suspected fraud committed at Ratei Branch. On the basis of the said report, an internal investigation was conducted and prima facie, it was found that the fraud has taken place by affecting fictitious transactions to the tune of Rs.1,91,91,164.00 and the likely loss to be suffered by the Bank, because of the said fictitious transactions, was reported to be 1,39,16,355/-. It was further alleged that many fictitious and unauthorized transactions have been made only in the computer system without any supporting vouchers and documents. In course of investigation, the prosecution arrested the Petitioner on 12/3/2015 and while in custody, he was served with a charge sheet dtd. 22/12/2015, under Regulation Nos.16, 18 & 20 of Odisha Gramya Bank Officers' and Employees' Service Regulation, 2010, which was received by him on 1/1/2016, calling for Show Cause to be filed within ten days of the receipt of the said charge sheet. On receipt of the charge sheet dtd. 22/12/2015, the Petitioner, through the Superintendent of Jail, submitted an application indicating therein that, as the incidence of fraud as per the charge sheet relates to four years back and since he is in custody, it is not practically possible on his part to submit the Show Cause within the stipulated period. It was further indicated therein that the submission of Show Cause to the charge sheet may not be insisted upon, until the Petitioner personally verifies the transaction records.

(3.) Further, after the Petitioner was released on bail, on 4/6/2016, he submitted an application with the Opposite Party No.2 requesting therein to permit him to verify the transaction entries and the concerned data and to take copies of the necessary papers enabling him to file the Show Cause in response to the charge sheet. In reply to the said request made by the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2, vide letter dtd. 14/6/2016, intimated the Petitioner granting permission to visit Ratei Branch to look into the alleged transactions in presence of the Branch Manager. However, his request to take copies of such transactions was refused.