SUDHAKAR PANDA Vs. ODISHA GRAMYA BANK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a quondam employee of Puri Gramya Bank, assails the order of punishment dated 19.4.2004 imposed by the disciplinary authority, vide Annexure-6 as well as the order dated 27.12.2004 passed by the Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, vide Annexure-7 proposing to enhance punishment of removal from services.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner are that he was functioning as officer in Puri Gramya Bank, which was subsequently merged with the Odisha Gramya Bank ( Bank ). While continuing as an officer, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for committing irregularities while sanctioning/disbursing loans to various persons. Twelve charges had been framed against him, vide Annexure-1. Show cause was issued to him. He submitted the explanation denying the charges. An enquiry officer was appointed. While matter stood thus, an additional chargesheet was issued to him on 2.7.2003, vide Annexure-3. The enquiry officer enquired into the allegation nos.1 to 12 in respect of first chargesheet and rendered a finding that charge nos.1 to 12 had been established except charge no.12. A copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority awarded penalty of recovery from emoluments or such other amounts as may be due to the petitioner of 30% of the pecuniary loss caused to the Bank in respect of first chargesheet and stoppage of five increments in respect of second chargesheet. The petitioner filed appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank. The appellate authority did not concur with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority and proposed to enhance punishment of removal from service in respect of first chargesheet. It concurred with the findings in respect of the second chargesheet. With this factual scenario, the writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard Mr.H.M.Dhal, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.B.S.Rayguru, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr.J.Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties.