RAGHUNATH DAS Vs. ODISHA GRAMYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is for quashing the Annexure-1 dated 23.5.1989 under which charge has been leveled against the petitioner and show cause notice dated 7.10.1996 and the order of punishment dated 24.12.1996 by which the punishment of stoppage of five (5) increments with cumulative effect has been inflicted and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 2.7.1997 by which the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that he while working as Branch Manager in the officer cadre under the opposite party was departmentally proceeded for commission of irregularities of sanction/disbursement of loan in favour of borrower and thereby it has been found that the petitioner has committed gross irregularities jeopardizing the interest of the Bank.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that the petitioner has been provided adequate and sufficient opportunity in course of enquiry but he himself has not chosen to avail the same and as such now he cannot be said that the opportunity has not been provided. Her contention is that the requirement of law is to provide an opportunity but not insist upon the employee to avail the opportunity. It is upon the delinquent employee to avail or not, if he has not availed the opportunity, it cannot be said that the process of disciplinary proceeding suffers from irregularities. So far as the second ground is concerned, she submits that there is well reasoned finding given by the enquiry officer and as such there is no requirement to give any reason by the disciplinary/appellate authority. In order to substantiate her argument, she has relied upon two judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; one in the case of Tara Chand Khatri vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, 1977 1 SCC 472 and another in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. and another vs. P.K. Khanna, 2005 7 SCC 597.