MANISH BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality and validity of dismissal order dated 10.10.2008 passed by the Assistant General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, against the petitioner and order dated 15.01.2009 passed by the appellate authority against the petitioner have been challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner was an employee in Grade-IV category and was working as Messenger in the State Bank of India, G.S. Road Branch, Shillong. On 19.08.2006, the petitioner was placed under suspension and on 16.10. 2008 memorandum of charges issued to him as under:--

(2.) Charge -I

(3.) By the aforesaid memorandum, the petitioner was also asked to show-cause in writing as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. In his reply, he simply denied the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the departmental inquiry was conducted against him. On the final day of the departmental inquiry i.e. on 21.05.2007, the petitioner could not attend the inquiry, therefore, an ex parte inquiry report was submitted and the same was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. However, when the petitioner submitted his objection, the Disciplinary Authority ordered to hold the departmental inquiry from the stage where the deferment was requested by the defense representative. When the inquiry recommenced, the defense representative raised objection on the ground that the first inquiry was conducted and concluded on 24.05.2007 and there cannot be any de novo inquiry. The inquiry officer referred the matter to disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the petitioner received the notice issued by the disciplinary authority proposing to impose punishment of dismissal without issuing notice in terms of Para No. 6(A) of memorandum of settlement of disposal causing procedure of workman. The petitioner in reply to the order submitted that the inquiry did not come to logical conclusion and he may be allowed full and fair opportunity to defend himself, then the impugned order of dismissal order was passed and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected. The petitioner has also alleged that the inquiry was conducted ex parte and the dismissal order is bad in law is liable to be set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated with back-wage and seniority.