MARY BESA NOKHOW Vs. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner, has challenged the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner as a penalty on conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner initially joined service as Clerk -cum -Cashier in the Punjab National Bank in 1981 and was promoted to the post of Computer Terminal Operator (CTO) in 2007. While serving as CTO at the Branch Office at Imphal, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 8.3.2008 and thereafter was served the charge -sheet dated 18.11.2008 containing the following charges as acts of gross misconduct in terms of clause 5(j) of the Bipartite settlement dated 10.04.2002:

(2.) THE departmental inquiry was duly conducted in which the petitioner denied the charges against her and she also chose to be represented by a representative of the Union for her defence, as revealed from the proceedings of the Departmental Enquiry, records of which have been submitted before this Court by the learned counsel for the Bank. On conclusion of the inquiry which held the charges against the petitioner proved, the petitioner was served with the notice dated 24.3.2009 to submit her representation in respect of the inquiry report which was duly submitted on 25.5.2009 reiterating her denial of the charges.

(3.) THE respondent authorities have filed their affidavit -in -opposition denying the allegations of the petitioner. It was denied that the Departmental Enquiry was not conducted as per the procedure and stated that the petitioner was given all opportunities to defend herself. It was also contended that the petitioner never made any request for production of any witness in her defence and the charges against the petitioner were duly supported. It was also denied that there was any discrimination in imposing penalty in respect of the petitioner and other two officers as they are governed by the Officers Service Regulation whereas the petitioner is governed by Bipartite Settlement where the provisions of penalty are different. It was stated that in respect of the petitioner, as she is a workman, she is governed by Bipartite Settlement, and penalty has been imposed on her as provided under the Settlement. It was stated that in the case of the petitioner, imposition of penalty reduction of pay in two stages was not possible and the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against her.