INDRA MOHAN PATOR Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the order dated 23.12.1998 passed by the Zonal Manager, United Bank of India, Guwahati Zonal Office, Guwahati imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement upon him and of the inaction of the appellate authority to dispose of the departmental appeal filed by him. The facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly noted at the outset. The petitioner was appointed as General Clerk in the Bank on 7.7.1983, was promoted on 1.1.1988 as Officer of the Bank at the Jorhat Branch. After his transfer to the Demow Chariali Branch as Deputy Manager, he was by the order dated 4.8.1995 suspended from service as disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him for certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him while functioning as Deputy Manager of the Demow-Chariali Branch of the Bank. On 12.9.1996, he was charge-sheeted and was asked to submit his written statement of defence against the charges. However, on 29.4.1997, the charge-sheet was amended by the respondent-Bank. The following are the charges levelled against the petitioner:

(2.) On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his reply on 1.11.1996 and specifically denied therein each and every charge levelled against him. It was asserted by the petitioner that the charges were vague and the nature of misconduct was not specified. He, therefore, requested the respondent authorities to exonerate him of all the charges and drop the proceedings against him in the interest of justice. The respondents, apparently, not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, decided to proceed with the departmental enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer as well as presenting officer. To the surprise of the petitioner, while the enquiry was going on, the respondents had issued the letter dated 29.4.97 amending the charge sheet by substituting the date "24.1.94" to "24.1.95". After completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer vide his letter dated 28.1.97 submitted his report to the respondent No. 2. In the enquiry report, it was evident that the enquiry officer found all the charges except charge No. 1 as proved against the petitioner, who was, accordingly, held guilty as charged. In reply to the enquiry report furnished to him, the petitioner reiterated that he was not guilty of the charges and requested the respondents to exonerate him from all the charges. According to the petitioner, a CBI case on similar charges was instituted against him together with two others including Shah Jamal Ali before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam in Special Case No. 102/2004 u/s. 120B/420/471/468/477A IPC and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge by the judgment dated 22.6.2005 acquitted the petitioner while the remaining two accused were convicted. In the departmental appeal preferred by him, the petitioner pointed out his acquittal by a criminal court in respect of the same charges and requested his exoneration in the departmental enquiry on that basis, but his appeal was never entertained. The respondent authority did not accept the representation of the petitioner and issued the impugned order imposing compulsory retirement upon him. The departmental appeal preferred by him also proved futile whereupon he filed this writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition is opposed by the respondent authorities, who filed their affidavit-in-opposition. In their counter-affidavit, the respondents pointed out that the departmental appeal was filed by the petitioner after the period of limitation and was, accordingly, rejected. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing by allowing him to engage his defence representative and was allowed to cross-examine and re-examine the witnesses. It is pointed out by the answering respondent that the petitioner himself admitted of having committed irregularities with regard to certain charges even though he took the vague plea that the Bank did not suffer any loss thereby, which is untenable at all. In his written brief also, according to the answering respondents, he took the stance that the irregularities were committed due to heavy work load thereby admitting his negligence at any rate. As all the charges were proved, there was no disproportionality in the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon him.