ABHIRAM SAMAL Vs. INDIAN BANK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ appeal the unsuccessful appellant has assailed the judgment dated 16.04.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 7848 of 2009 declining to interfere in the disciplinary proceeding and the order imposing punishment of compulsory retirement.

(2.) The appellant-petitioner was appointed as an officer of the Indian Bank. In the year 2006 he was working as Inspecting Manager at Kolkata Office. His duty was to conduct inspection of various branches under Kolkata region. On 20.07.2006 he was entrusted with the inspection of banks at Cuttack, Chhatrapur and Saudia branches. It is alleged that instead of staying at Bhubaneswar for inspection of Chhatrapur and Saudia branches, he stayed at Cuttack and submitted T.A. Bill for lodging at Hotel Neeladri, Mangalabag, Cuttack from 10.1.2006 to 22.2.2006. He claimed Rs. 42,000/- towards hotel room rent charges. The irregularity committed in T.A. Bill submitted on 24.3.2006 was detected and, explanation was called for on 20.7.2006 by the Deputy General Manager (Inspection Centre), Kolkata. The appellant submitted his explanation on 24.7.2006, stating that he stayed at hotel as per his eligibility for smooth conduct and timely completion of the assigned job. On 18.12.2006 second explanation was called for, to which reply was submitted on 25.1.2007 by the appellantpetitioner denying such allegation. Without appreciating the explanation given by the appellant-petitioner, articles of charge dated 6.6.2007 was served alleging dishonest misconduct under Regulation 3(1) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (to be referred hereinafter as "Conduct Regulation, 1976"). The appellant was also served with statement of imputation and list of documents basing upon which articles of charge were framed. On 25.6.2007 written statement was filed by the appellant. Being dissatisfied, an enquiry was ordered. One Senior Manager, namely, R.Chakrapani was appointed as Enquiring Officer. Evidence was adduced. On 24.3.2008 inquiry report was submitted holding that charge nos. 1 and 2 were proved. The copy of the inquiry report was communicated to the appellant, calling upon him to give explanation.

(3.) The appellant preferred appeal under Regulation 17 (1) of the Conduct Regulation, 1976. The appeal was dismissed on 31.10.2008. Review petition was filed before the Reviewing Authority on 1.12.2008. The review was dismissed on 17.4.2009. The said order was assailed in the writ petition, order of which is impugned here. The learned Single Judge on consideration of facts and law raised by the parties held that the entire episode of inspection of banks at Chhatrapur and Cuttack branches having held within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The concurrent finding of facts given by the enquiry authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority could not be interfered with in absence of any procedural irregularities. The power of judicial review to scan the evidence, which had reached finality on the basis of concurrent finding, was found uncalled for in the facts placed and law analyzed. Accordingly, learned Single Judge declined to interfere with in the punishment imposed upon the appellant- petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding conducted under the Conduct Regulation, 1976.