CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of Allahabad Bank. This writ application was filed on 29.2.2008 seeking quashment of the charge-sheet dated 21.1.2008 issued under the signature of Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, The Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Nagpur. During the pendency of the writ application, the Disciplinary Authority, by an order dated 6.6.2008 imposed upon the petitioner punishment of removal from Bank service not being a disqualification for future employment. It was specifically mentioned in the said order dated 6.6.2008 that the petitioner could make an appeal to the Appellate Authority i.e. General Manager, The Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Mumbai within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order in terms of Regulation 17(1) of Allahabad Bank Officer Employee's (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. He admittedly did not prefer statutory appeal. The petitioner however, seeks to challenge the said order dated 6.6.2008 by filing an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2582 of 2014 by way of amendment in the writ application. The said application has been filed on 26.3.2014. Though there is no specific averment in the writ application or in the interlocutory application as regards his date of superannuation, it would be evident from the statement made in paragraphs No. 9 and 10 of the writ application that by now the petitioner must have attained the age of superannuation and he must have retired by now.

(2.) There is no explanation, in the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2582 of 2014 seeking amendment to challenge the final order of removal dated 6.6.2008, as to what prevented the petitioner from challenging the said order during all these six years and as to why he did not prefer statutory appeal provided under the Regulations, though availability of such remedy was mentioned in the impugned order also. The writ application deserves to be dismissed on this account alone. However, there are certain salient features of this case which, I think are worth taking note and which would demonstrate how the petitioner persistently came approaching this Court to avoid an order of transfer and how he attempted to mislead a Division Bench of this Court when the order of dismissal was passed against him.

(3.) The petitioner, at the relevant point of time was posted as Senior Manager, F.I.O., Patna, Allahabad Bank. By letter dated 13.9.2006, decision of the Personnel Administration Department of the Bank to post him under Nagpur Zone was communicated. It was mentioned in the said letter that he would stand relieved at the close of working hours on 14.9.2006 for onward reporting at Zonal Office, Nagpur, after availing of usual joining time, for receiving further placement order.