(1.) Petitioner at the relevant time held the post of Senior Field Officer officiated as Incharge Branch Manager of Simaria Branch of the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). He is aggrieved by the order of the Administrator of the Bank bearing Memo No. 10416 dated 7.9.1999, Annexure-21, whereunder he has been dismissed from service of the Bank holding him guilty of the charges levelled against him pursuant to a departmental proceeding. He is also aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Society bearing Memo No. 125/R.L. dated 9.4.2002, Annexure-23, whereunder Service Appeal No. 266 of 1999 filed against order dated 7.9.1999, Annexure-21 has been rejected. While the Petitioner served as Incharge Branch Manager, Simaria Branch a fire broke out in the branch on 21.3.1987 around 3.30 a.m., the occurrence was reported to Simaria Police Station on 21.3.1987 at 5 a.m. by the ad hoc accountant serving the branch and Simaria P.S. Case No. 32 of 1987 dated 21.3.1987 was registered for the offence under Sections 436, 379 I.P.C. against unknown. First Information Report is contained in Annexure-1 to this application. During investigation of Simaria P.S. Case No. 32 of 1987 Petitioner was placed under suspension by the Managing Director of the Bank under office order bearing memo No. 7115 dated 6.4.1987, Annexure-3 fixing his headquarter in the regional office of the Bank at Hazaribagh. On the representation of the Petitioner dated 21.4.1987, Annexure-4 the headquarter of the Petitioner was shifted under office order bearing No. 8395 dated 26.5.1987 from Hazaribagh regional office to the head office of the Bank at Patna. Police having investigated Simaria P.S. Case No. 32 of 1987 registered for the incident of fire in the branch in the night of 21.3.1987 submitted final form stating occurrence true but no clue, which was accepted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra under order dated 28.11.1989, Annexure-2B. In the light of the findings of the Investigating Agency Petitioner submitted his further representation and on the representation of the Petitioner his suspension was revoked by the Administrator of the Bank under office order bearing Memo No. 8469 dated 24.2.1992, Annexure-5 observing that the decision in regard to payment of arrears of salary to the Petitioner for the suspension period shall be taken later. After reinstatement Petitioner requested the authorities of the Bank for arrears of salary for the suspension period but it appears the request was not considered and Petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 1050 of 1995(R) before the Ranchi Bench of this Court. Ranchi Bench of this Court under interim order dated 28.7.1995, Annexure-6 directed the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner for payment of arrears of salary and allowance for the suspension period i.e. 6.4.1987-24.2.1992 as also for promotion in the selection grade.
(2.) in the light of the interim order of the Ranchi Bench Petitioner submitted his representation bearing letter No. 59 dated 7.8.1995, Annexure-6A requesting the authorities of the Bank to pay him arrears of salary for the suspension period i.e. 6.4.1987 to 24.2.1992 as also to consider his case for promotion, but the authorities of the Bank without considering the representation of the Petitioner proceeded to serve on him show cause notice dated 2.9.1995, Annexure-7 alleging that he absented himself from Simaria Branch of the Bank from 16.3.1987 and that on account of his lack of control and supervision fire broke out in the branch for which he was also placed under suspension under office order dated 6.4.1987, Annexure-3 but he did not join the headquarter fixed during the period of suspension in the regional office of the Bank at Hazaribagh and submitted his joining on 21.4.1987 in the head office at Patna. It was also alleged in the show cause notice that while proceeding on leave Petitioner did not make proper security arrangement in the branch as also failed to fix the roster of the night guards. Had he made proper security arrangement fire may not have broken in the branch which broke out on account of his negligence. It was also stated in the show cause that during inspection of the branch after the incident of fire hardly any remains of furniture etc. was available but from his residence which is situate adjoining the branch Petitioner had removed all his belongings while he was proceeding on unauthorized absence, as such, it appears that Petitioner had prior information about the branch being subjected to mischief of fire. In paragraph-5 of the notice it was alleged that he did not cooperate in the investigation of the case, although was the controlling officer of the branch and should have come to the branch after the occurrence for assisting the investigation. In paragraph-6 of the notice it is alleged that relationship of Petitioner with other employees of the branch was not cordial as he was in the habit of using foul language and threatening the employees serving the branch of lodging case against them as also was regularly marking them absent in the attendance register and stopping their salary. In paragraph-7 of the notice it is alleged that Petitioner had taken his residence in the same premises in which the branch was situate and the carpet area of the branch and his residence was almost same but in collusion with the landlord, to harm the financial interest of the Bank he was paying Rs. 450/- per month as the rent of the branch premises and Rs. 150/- per month for the residence and thereby was causing financial loss to the Bank. In paragraph-8 of the notice Petitioner is alleged to have violated the instructions of the superior officers of the Bank contained in letter dated 8.5.1989, 4.10.1986 and 23.12.1986. In paragraph-9 of the notice it is alleged that Petitioner while proceeding on unauthorized absence also took the keys of the branch with him and did not come to the branch after the occurrence but sent the keys of the branch through a non-departmental person to the Block Development Officer, Simaria and not to the controlling officer, as such, it appears Petitioner had information about the incident of fire from before. In paragraph-10 of the notice it is alleged that from perusal of the deposit-cum-expenditure register it appears that a sum of Rs. 60/- is due from the Petitioner to the Simaria Branch of the Bank. In paragraph-11 and 12 of the notice it is concluded that in view of the allegations contained in paragraphs-1 to 10 it appears that Petitioner is an irresponsible, indisciplined and careless employee of the Bank who is guilty of the charge of unauthorized absence as also lacks etiquette and good behaviour and that he did not cooperate in the investigation of the criminal case, as such, he was aware of mischief of fire from before. Petitioner was called upon to submit his reply to the allegations contained in notice within 15 days, failing which appropriate order shall be passed as per the understanding of the authorities of the Bank.
(3.) In response to the show cause notice dated 2.9.1995, Annexure-7 Petitioner filed his reply contained in letter No. 81 dated 30.9.1995, Annexure-8 stating that on 16.3.1987 he proceeded on leave after informing the District Manager, Hazaribagh and remained on leave until 15.4.1987 but during the leave period itself was placed under suspension under memo dated 6.4.1987 on false, vague charges of misconduct, although no charge-sheet was ever given to him and that his headquarter was fixed at Patna by the authorities of the Bank under order bearing Memo No. 8395 dated 26.5.1987. He further stated in paragraph-5 of the show cause reply that as no charge-sheet was given to him about the incident of fire even after passage of 5 years, on his representation the authorities of the Bank revoked his suspension under order dated 24.2.1992, Annexure-5 with observation that decision for payment of his salary for the suspension period shall be taken later. It was further stated in the show cause reply that when no decision was taken in regard to payment of arrears of salary of the Petitioner for the suspension period he filed C.W.J.C. No. 1050 of 1995(R) for payment of arrears of salary for the suspension period. Ranchi Bench of this Court under orders dated 28.7.1995 adjourned the case for two months directing the Administrator of the Bank to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner for payment of arrears of salary for the suspension period. In the light of the interim order of the Ranchi Bench Petitioner filed representation dated 7.8.1995 but instead of considering the representation of the Petitioner he was served with show cause dated 2.9.1995, Annexure-7 for the same misconduct for which he was earlier suspended and the suspension was revoked under order dated 24.2.1992 without serving show cause/charge-sheet. Petitioner also stated in his reply that as the matter has become stale and he has not been given any documents it is not possible for him to submit any explanation at this belated stage.