RAMESH JARADHARA Vs. ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Roman Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. S. Musahary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The writ petitioner herein was serving as an officer under the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, i.e. the respondent No. 1. While he was posted as Branch Manager of Borboruah Branch in the district of Dibrugarh, a memorandum of charge, dtd. 1/3/2014, was served upon the writ petitioner containing the articles of charges. After the petitioner had submitted his written statement, departmental proceeding was held against the petitioner, where-after the Enquiry Officer had submitted Enquiry Report dtd. 25/2/2015 holding that all the charges brought against the petitioner had been proved. On receipt of the Enquiry Report dtd. 25/2/2015, the disciplinary authority, i.e. the respondent No. 3 had issued the order dtd. 30/9/2015 informing the petitioner that he concurs with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and accordingly, imposed the major penalty of 'reduction of basic pay by 5 (five) stages with cumulative effect' upon the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dtd. 30/3/2015 the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30/4/2023.

(3.) By referring to the article of charges, the written statement of defense submitted by the petitioner as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Sarma has argued that there is no allegation of corruption or misappropriation of money against the petitioner leading to loss sustained by the Bank. According to Mr. Sarma, the allegation brought against the petitioner are all in the realm of discharge of his official duties as the manager of the Bank. However, at times some steps had to be taken by the petitioner in view of the pressure mounted upon him so as to implement various schemes and also to deliver on the services in a time bound manner. Mr. Sarma has further argued that the petitioner had furnished sufficient explanation in respect of each of the charges brought against him by stating the reasons why certain recourse had to be adopted by him while discharging his duties as Branch Manager of Borboruah Branch. However, instead of appreciating the stand of the petitioner as projected in his written statement, the Enquiry Officer had taken a completely one sided view in the matter. Not only that, according to Mr. Sarma the respondent No. 3 had concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer even before furnishing a copy of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner, thereby displaying a predetermine mind set in the matter.