BASANT KUMAR SENAPATI Vs. ORISSA CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is against the order dtd.9.11.2004 (Annexure-10) whereby and where under the disciplinary authority has passed order of dismissal from service with effect from the date of order and the period of suspension till his dismissal from service be treated as such.

(2.) The ground taken by the petitioner in assailing the order of dismissal is that he has not been provided with adequate and sufficient opportunity to defend himself, not been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and the foremost ground taken is that the enquiry has been conducted by the Branch Manager while the General Manager has duly been appointed as Enquiry Officer, as such there is no application of mind by the enquiry officer, as such the entire proceeding is vitiated in the eye of law, in consequence thereof, the order of suspension is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fortified his argument by referring to a document, i.e. letter dtd.16.8.1994, to demonstrate that the General Manager has been appointed as enquiry officer but the enquiry has been conducted by the Branch Manager.

(3.) While on the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party - Bank has vehemently opposed the stand and submission of the petitioner by submitting that there is no illegality in the process of the departmental proceeding. The General Manager has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer who has conducted enquiry of the allegation leveled against the petitioner of commission of financial irregularities as also disobedience of the order passed by the competent authority, negligence in duty, etc., the disciplinary authority, in pursuance of the finding of the enquiry officer and considering the nature of allegation, has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service after following due process, hence there is no illegality in the order.