ABHIRAM SAMAL Vs. INDIAN BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, while working as Manager, Inspection Centre at Kolkatta Office of the Indian Bank, was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and subsequently, he was imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement by the Disciplinary Authority, opposite party No. 4 vide order dated 15.05.2008 (Annexure -10), confirmed by Appellate Authority, opposite party No. 3 vide order dated 03.10.2008 (Annexure -12) and reaffirmed by Reviewing Authority, opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 20.04.2009 (Annexure -14).

(2.) THE short facts of the case, in hand, is that following a recruitment process, the petitioner was appointed as an Officer of the Indian Ban, a Nationalized Bank within the control of the Union of India. Considering his efficiency and sincerity, he was promoted from time to time. Finally he was promoted to Grade of Manager (Scale -II) Officer Post on 12.10.1992 and his services were placed at Inspection Centre of Bank at Kolkata. As Inspecting Manager, the petitioner has to conduct inspection of various Branches under Kolkata Region under whose jurisdiction Cuttack and Chhatrapur Branch come. The petitioner was issued with a communication on 20.07.2006 stating that he was given inspection work near his place of residence, i.e. Bhubaneswar. Instead of staying at Bhubaneswar, he stayed at Cuttack, Chhatrapur and Saudia branches during regular inspection and submitted lodging bills, which was irregular. Therefore, he was called upon to give explanation with regard to irregularity committed in T.A. Bill dated 24.03.2006 within a period of seven days. In response to said letter, the petitioner had replied on 24.07.2006 denying the allegation and stated that he has not been instructed to stay at Bhubaneswar while conducting inspection at Chatrapur, Cuttack and Saudia. Therefore, he preferred to stay at hotels as per his eligibility for smooth conduct and timely completion of the assigned job. Having not satisfied with the explanation submitted, a letter was issued on 18.12.2006 stating, inter alia, that the matter has been investigated into as per instruction of the higher authorities and it is observed that irregularities have been committed in submission of TA bills as per investigation reports. Therefore, he was again called upon to give explanation within a period of seven days vide Annexure -3. In response to the same, the petitioner also submitted his reply on 25.01.2007 reaffirming his contention raised earlier and also clarified that during the period from 10.01.2006 to 22.02.2006, he stayed in Hotel Neeladri, Mangalabag, Cuttack and submitted the bills with TA bills which was claimed by the hotel from time to time and the same was duly paid by him. He also further clarified that at Chhatrapur, he stayed at Sri Venkateswara lodge from 23.02.2006 to 09.03.2006 and paid the bills as claimed by the hotel. The room tariff, which he has paid, was as per demand of the hotel and he was not aware of the room tariff of various other rooms as stated in his letter itself. Therefore, attribution made with regard to improper maintenance and discrepancies in maintenance of register/records by hotel authority, he was no way concerned for such maintenance and therefore, he cannot be able to explain such irregularity, if any, committed by the hotel authority. Without appreciating the explanation given by the petitioner, he was issued with an article of charges dated 06.06.2007 vide Annexure -5, which are as follows:

(3.) PER contra Mr. S.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties, strenuously urged that since there is a concurrent finding of facts with regard to irregularities and illegalities committed by the petitioner, this Court should not sit as appellate authority over the orders passed by the fact finding authority and interfere with the concurrent finding of facts and the scope of this court in exercise of power of judicial review to interfere with the imposition of penalty against the delinquent officer is very limited. It is further urged that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition as the cause of action arises while the petitioner was serving at Kolkata. Merely because the inquiry was conducted so far as the petitioner's stay at Cuttack and Chhatrapur hotels is concerned, that ipso facto cannot confer a jurisdiction on this Court to hear this matter. It is further urged that no procedural irregularity has been committed by the authority while conducting the inquiry and there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice in any manner. Assuming this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition, on merits also this Court cannot disturb the findings arrived at by the fact finding authority in enquiry proceeding, subsequently by disciplinary authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority. In order to substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Bank of India v. T. Jogram, : 2007 (5) Supreme 801, Paitrus Ekka v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., : (2010) 3 JLJR 135.