RAMA CHANDRA BEHERA Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the second showcause notice vide Annexure-1 on the premises that Sri P.K. Bose, Enquiry Officer appointed involving inquiry against the petitioner being not an Officer in the cadre of Balasore Gramya Bank and further not an Officer deployed to the service of Balasore Gramya Bank to hold any of the post of the cadre of Officer of Balasore Gramya Bank has no authority to hold such inquiry and the enquiry conducted by Sri P.K. Bose is hit by the regulation 30 (3) read with Regulation 2(1) and Regulation 3(2) of the Balasore Gramya Bank (Staff) Service Regulation 1980 (hereinafter called as "Regulation, 1980").

(2.) Background involving the case is that petitioner joined as Cashier in the Balasore Gramya Bank on 13.1.1982. On 12.6.1985, the petitioner was posted in Mitrapur Branch of the Balasore Gramya Bank. On 31.5.1997, he was promoted to the rank of Officer Scale-1 with effect from 28.4.1989. While continuing as such, petitioner was suspended on the ground of financial irregularity in maintaining certain records and allowing misappropriation during incumbency at Mitrapur Branch vide order dated 24.3.1998. On 24.9.1998, charges were framed and again on 25.10.1999 additional charges were also framed. In the process, on 11.9.2000 one P.K. Bose was appointed as Enquiry Officer and on 17.4.2002 the Enquiry report was submitted resulting issuance of second show-cause notice on 2.12.2002 vide Annexure-1 impugned herein.

(3.) Advancing his argument, Sri Sanjit Mohanty, learned senior Advocate challenging to the illegality in the appointment of Sri P.K. Bose as the Enquiry Officer, taking this Court to the provision at Section 2(e) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (for short "R.R.B. Act, 1976") attempted to submit the definition prescribed means prescribed by rules made under this Act. Then taking to the provision at Section 17 of the R.R.B. Act, 1976, Sri Mohanty submitted that for the provision therein, it becomes lawful on the part of the Regional Rural Bank to send such number of Officers or other employees on deputation to the Regional Rural Bank as may be necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of its functions. Referring to Section 30 of the R.R.B. Act, 1976, Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel contended that for this provision of the Act, the Board of directors of the Regional Rural Bank may after consultation with Sponsor Bank and the National Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. It is here, Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel taking this Court to the provision at Section 17 of the Act, 1976 contended that even assuming that the Regional Rural Bank on the request of the sponsored Bank send Officers on deputation to this sponsored Bank but that is again should be with the previous sanction of the Central Government. It is in the circumstance, Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel contended that for the appointment of Sri P.K. Bose in the sponsored Bank i.e. Balasore Gramya Bank is not with the previous sanction of Central Government and thus he was even not competent to hold any such post. Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel further taking this Court to the provisions of the Balasore Gramya Bank, more particularly, the definition chapter Regulation 2(i) read with Regulation 3 (2) of the Regulation, 1980 contended that for the definition of an Officer and the staffing pattern of the Gramya Bank there is no position of an Officer in its staffing nomenclation. Again for the clear provision at Regulation 3(2), Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel contended that even assuming that Sri P.K. Bose was deputed to function as an Officer in the Gramya Bank for the Officer post not inclusive in the staffing pattern, there should have been a prior approval of the Central Government to such decision of the Board. It is at this stage, Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel referring to Regulation 5 and Regulation 30 therein justified his submission that Sri P.K. Bose deputed to function as an Officer is not in accordance with the provisions of the regulation further without prior approval of the Central Government and as such was competent to hold any such enquiry. It is in the circumstance, Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel urged this Court for interfering in the enquiry process and while requesting for declaring appointment of Sri Bose void, set aside the second showcause notice. Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel to substantiate his above submission has also took this Court to the decisions in the case of Central Bank of India v. C.Bernard, (1991) 1 SCC 319, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F., Universal Ltd. and another,2005 AIR(SC)4446, Bharat Co-operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. v. Co-operative Bank Employees Union, (2007) AIR SC 2320, Veer Kunwar Singh University Ad hoc Teachers Association and others v. Bihar State University (C.C.) Service Commission and others, (2009) 17 SCC 184 and in the case of Dipak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others, (2014) 3 SCC 502 Taking this Court to the aforesaid decisions, , Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel also submitted that for the application of all the decisions cited above to the case at hand has case otherwise to succeed for the settled position of law.