SWAPNA KALITA Vs. ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dtd. 6/8/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2897/2013.

(2.) The appellant was initially appointed to the post of Office Assistant (multi-purpose) at Hatisung, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (hereinafter referred to as "AGV Bank") branch in the District of Nagaon on 1/6/1990. After rendering service in different branches of the AGVB, the appellant was posted at the Morigaon Branch in the same capacity at the relevant point in time. While, she was serving in the Morigaon Branch of AGVB, she was served with a letter dtd. 23/3/2011 issued by the respondent No. 4, calling upon her to submit her explanation in respect of an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh Only) which it was claimed was misappropriated by the appellant for the period from 21/2/2011 to 17/3/2011. Pursuant to the said letter, the appellant submitted her explanation denying the allegations leveled against her in her reply dtd. 25/3/2011. On the same date, by another communication dtd. 25/3/2011, the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority of the Bank placed the appellant under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant. The appellant was issued show-cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against her for misappropriating an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 for the period from 21/2/2011 to 17/3/2011. The appellant denied all the charges leveled against her by furnishing her reply dtd. 29/7/2011. A further notice was issued by the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority dtd. 13/10/2011 whereby Article of Charges were served on the appellant. The appellant submitted her written statements on 31/10/2011 against the allegations levelled against her. Not being satisfied with her explanation furnished by way of the written statements, the Bank decided to initiate a departmental enquiry against the appellant and appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the appellant. A Presenting Officer was also appointed to present the Bank's case in the departmental enquiry. The enquiry, thereafter, proceeded and the appellant also participated in the departmental proceedings which concluded on 16/5/2012. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report holding that all the charges levelled against the appellant stands proved. The Chairman and Disciplinary Authority furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant and permitting her to submit her statements. The appellant submitted her statements denying all the allegations and further stating that the Management Witnesses (M.W.) were not able to prove the signature of the appellant in the counter foil dtd. 21/2/2011 and also that the Enquiry Officer denied her request to summon vital witnesses for adducing evidence in her support. By communication dtd. 30/11/2012, the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose the punishment of removal from the service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. The appellant was permitted to appeared personally or to submit her written representation with regard to the proposed punishment. The appellant responded by appearing in-person before the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority denying the allegations of misappropriation of Rs.1,00,000.00. Thereafter, the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority by communication dtd. 24/12/2012 imposed the punishment on the appellant of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. Against the said order of punishment dtd. 24/12/2012, the appellant preferred an appeal dtd. 4/2/2013 before the appellate authority. However, the same also came to be dismissed rejected by the appellate authority by communication dtd. 4/3/2013. Being aggrieved the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2897/2013 challenging the impugned order dtd. 24/12/2012 being the order of removal and a further direction to treat the petitioner/appellant to be on duty with effect from 24/12/2012 till her reinstatement and back wages. After consideration of the entire matter as well as the various Judgments of the Apex Court enunciating the principles of judicial review in respect of departmental proceedings leading to punishment of removal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed on the following grounds:

(3.) Before us, the arguments urged before the learned Single Judge were reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer did not respond to the prayer of the appellant for summoning the vital witnesses as proposed by her to prove her case. The further arguments on behalf of the appellant is that the impugned order of removal dtd. 24/12/2012 issued by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority is vitiated by malice as none of the Management Witnesses were able to prove the signature of the appellant in the counterfoil dtd. 21/2/2011. It is urged that the allegation of misconduct was never proved during the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order of removal dtd. 24/12/2012 should therefore be interfered with, set aside and quashed. It was also urged that the appellate authority rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant mechanically and without due consideration. These aspects not having been examined by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order dtd. 6/8/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge should also be interfered with and set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant also relies upon the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Ors. Vs. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 469 to contend that the appellate authority must provide detailed reasons and they are required to give reasons while confirming views of the Disciplinary Authority.