RANJAN KUMAR Vs. MALANDA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 2/06/1999 (Annexure 1) passed by the disciplinary authority whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect and it has also been directed that the period of suspension shall not be treated as the period spent on duty. Further prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order 12/05/2000 (Annexure 2) whereby the appellate authority had affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that at the relevant time, petitioner was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier of Nalanda Gramin Bank, hereinafter referred to as the Bank. By order dated 3/12/1993 (Annexure 4), he was put under suspension for the purported misconduct committed by him on 2/12/1993 allegedly for not following the rules of the Bank and disobedience of the orders of the superior authority. By letter dated 5/01/1994 (Annexure 5) petitioner was asked to submit his explanation and in reply thereto, petitioner submitted his reply. It seems that the petitioner's Union approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner making complaint in regard to the suspension of the petitioner and on account of understanding reached before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the respondent Bank by order dated 18/02/1994, revoked the suspension of the petitioner with retrospective effect with caution -and warning to him that he shall not repeat the disobedience of the nature in future.

(3.) The petitioner was again suspended by order dated 15/03/1994 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was served with memo of charges dated 22/02/1994 and 4/04/1994 (Annexure 2). In the departmental proceeding one Shri Birendra Kumar was appointed as Inquiry Officer who submitted an ex pane inquiry report. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his reply. However, the disciplinary authority set aside the Inquiry report ordered inquiry and appointed Shri Pares Kumar Jha as the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report dated 4/08/1997 (Annexure 8). The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from charges No. 1 but held him guilty of charge Nos. 2 and 3. First charge related to the petitioner entering the chambers of the General Manager and abusing him whereas charges Nos. 2 and 3 related to refusal of the petitioner to receive confidential letters issued to him on 7/03/1994 and Mar 15/03/1994. On receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority gave him show cause notice against the proposed punishment. While doing so, it observed that he is in disagreement with the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge No. 1 and after assigning the reasons, he held the petitioner guilty of charge No. 1 also and then gave to the petitioner the second show cause notice in respect of the proposed punishment. In response to the aforesaid second show cause notice, petitioner filed his reply dated 15/07/1999 (Annexure 9) and prayed for exonerating him from all the charges. The disciplinary authority, on consideration of the show cause filed by the petitioner and in agreement with the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge Nos. 2 and 3 and on disagreement in respect of charge No. 1 imposed on the petitioner the penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect and further directed that the period of suspension shall not be treated as period spent on duty and for that period, petitioner shall not be entitled to other monetary benefit excepting the subsistence allowance. Petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred appeal and the appellate authority, by the impugned order dated 12/01/2000 (Annexure 2), dismissed the same. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner is to quash the aforesaid orders.