VIJAY KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI SHOBHI LAL VERMA Vs. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, FRASER ROAD, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and the respondents in the two writ applications are common, in the circumstances, both the applications have been taken up together for hearing in the light of the orders of this Court dated 17.3.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3139 of 1997.

(2.) Petitioner at the relevant time served on the post of Assistant Office Superintendent in the Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). In C.W.J.C. No. 3139 of 1997 he has challenged the office order bearing Memo No. 3525 dated 28.2.1997, Annexure-9, whereunder in the light of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer under report dated 20.1.1997, Annexure-7 pursuant to memo of charge dated 1.11.1996, Annexure-1, he has been awarded the punishment of demotion and demoted to the rank of Assistant for failure to comply the transfer order dated 15.2.1996, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit directing him to join the Saharsa Branch Office by 23.2.1996 thereby he remained under unauthorized absence for 164 days with effect from 19.2.1996 till 31.7.1996.

(3.) In C.W.J.C. No. 11838 of 1997 petitioner has challenged the contents of Letter No. 1231 and 1232 dated 8.8.1997, Annexures 1 and 1/1, whereunder he has been communicated the Annual Confidential Remarks recorded against him by the Managing Director of the Corporation for the year 1994-95 and 1995-96. In the said writ case he has also challenged the memo of charge dated 26.9.1997, Annexure-2, whereunder he is alleged to have displayed gross indiscipline and misconduct against the Managing Director of the Corporation by directly writing letter dated 14.8.1997 to the I.D.C, Government of Bihar, Patna, contents whereof are derogatory, outrageous and obnoxious exceeding all bounds of decency, reasonableness and propriety amounting to gross indiscipline and misconduct. Under letter dated 14.8.1997 he is also alleged to have made contemptuous remarks against the judiciary. It is further alleged in the charge-sheet that although petitioner is on the post of Assistant in the Corporation, he has described himself as Assistant Office Superintendent which is an act of grave misconduct and disobedience of order contained in Memo No. 3525 dated 28.2.1997 impugned as Annexure-9 in the former writ case.