(1.) This writ petition is under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and where under, the direction has been sought for by the petitioner upon the opposite parties to exonerate him by quashing the order of punishment dated 13.05.1999 and 23.08.2001 under Annexure-11 by which the punishment of reduction of pay scale by one stage lower in his existing Scale of pay has been inflicted.
(2.) Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Special Assistant at Bhubaneswar Branch, United Bank of India had signed debit transfer and credit transfer vouchers for Rs. 9983.09 both dated 6.2.1990 for transferring the balance at the credit of Savings Bank A/c. No. 343 in the name of Sri Padmanav Nanda from inoperative SB Ledger to operative SB Ledger without any application/request letter from the Account Holder and also without any instruction from Higher Authority to this effect. He has put his signature in the aforesaid vouchers at the place of Deputy Manager without any officer order issued to him in this regard. By the above process he has duped the other signatories to sing the aforesaid vouchers. On 19.07.1990 he took initiative to get the sum of Rs. 7651.30 credited as interest to the aforesaid SB A/c of Sri Padmanav Nanda by the Relieving Officer of SB Department of the Branch at the relevant time. Subsequently, it was revealed that the above account holder Padmanav Nanda had died on 11.12.1970. Due to the aforesaid acts, a sum of Rs. 17,500.00 was fraudulently withdrawn from the SB A/c. No. 343 against the above two credits made in the account vide two withdrawal slips for Rs. 8,000.00 dated 2.6.1990 and Rs. 9,500.00 dated 12.09.1990 drawn under forged signature of the deceased account holder and thereby his alleged acts exposed the Bank to financial loss. He was alleged to have committed gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause 19.5 (J) of Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 which stated "doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank". He was directed to submit his explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of charge-sheet. After receipt of charge-sheet, the petitioner wrote representation to the disciplinary authority, United Bank of India requesting him to supply the documents, but the documents has not been supplied and in absence thereof, reply has been submitted, enquiry proceeded wherein the enquiry officer has found none of the charges proved against him, enquiry report has been forwarded before the disciplinary authority but the same has been differed along with the note of difference asking the petitioner to submit his representation within 15 days, which was replied by him, the disciplinary authority, having not found the reply satisfactory, has imposed the punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage lower in the present scale of pay. The petitioner has approached to the appellate authority raising the points of consideration but the appeal has also been dismissed affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner is before this Court against both the orders by way of the instant writ petition.
(3.) The petitioner has assailed the orders on the ground that the enquiry officer, after consideration of the entire material available on record and also taking into consideration that the relevant documents related to the framing of charge, has not been brought on record i.e. the application of request to operate the inoperative account and also the vouchers. The enquiry officer has also taken into consideration that Mr. A.B. Rao, the officer of the SB Department who was directed the petitioner to prepare the transfer voucher of inoperative A/c. to operative A/c. has not been brought before the enquiry officer for its cross-examination. The submission of the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority while differing with the finding of the enquiry officer has not taken into consideration that the relevant documents have not been brought before the enquiry officer and in absence thereof, the finding of the enquiry officer has been disagreed to, hence the disciplinary authority has acted only in order to harass the petitioner.