BAIDYANATH SHUKLA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the petitioner, who was an Officer in the Central Bank of India (hereinafter called as 'the Bank'), has prayed for quashing of the order contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby a punishment of reduction to a lower stage by two steps in the times scale of pay was imposed on him purporting to be in terms of Clause (a) of Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter called as 'the Regulations') which is a major penalty.

(2.) The short relevant facts as would appear from the writ petition and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank are that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Branch Manager of the Bank at its Harnaut Branch. A memorandum of imputation of lapses dated 14-9-1978 was issued to the petitioner who submitted his statement of defence which was later appeared to be of serious nature and memorandum, statements of articles of charges and the statement of allegations dated 16-1-1979 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his statement of defence. The petitioner submitted his defence on 25-1-1979. Subsequently, a minor corrigendum to articles of charges and the statement of allegations were also issued on 22-9-1979 in respect of charge No. 7. A departmental enquiry was conducted by the officers appointed by the disciplinary authority which was concluded on 22-12-1979 after holding several sittings on various dates. The petitioner in his defence pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him. From the impugned order it appears that the petitioner was charged for his various acts of omission and commission amounting to breach of Regulations 3 and 16 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter called as 'the Conduct Regulations') thereby constituting misconduct, according to Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations. The enquiry officer submitted his report and the disciplinary authority after going through the same as also through enquiry proceedings, written briefs of both the sides and all the evidence adduced during the course of enquiry proceedings by both sides found some of the charges to be fully proved against the petitioner.

(3.) It appears that the defence representative made the following submissions: