RAM BALAK RAY S/O SHRI KUSHESHWAR RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAK JAINAB, P.O. CHAK SIKANDAR POLICE STATION BIDUPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI Vs. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL OFFICE, CHANDER MUKHI NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:-

(3.) Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has straightway proceeded to assail the impugned orders of punishment and its affirmance by appellate authority on the ground of a number of procedural infirmities in course of departmental proceeding as well as passing of the impugned orders by the disciplinary authority as also by the appellate authority. In this regard he has firstly submitted that after the departmental inquiry was concluded even the copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner and yet the order of punishment was passed only by way of concurrence to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the inquiry report. He has also pointed out that as a matter of fact when this issue relating to non supply of the inquiry report was raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority, the appellate authority itself assumed power of disciplinary authority and had directed for service of copy of inquiry report to the petitioner where after the petitioner was asked to submit his comment/reaction to the inquiry report before the appellate authority itself and the impugned appellate order thereafter was passed affirming the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. In this regard has explained that firstly the appellate authority could not have assumed the role of disciplinary authority and secondly even if the appellate authority had disposed of the appeal, he had to at least consider the defence of the petitioner as raised by him in reply to the findings recorded in the inquiry report. He has also referred to the appellate order to only substantiate this aspect that the appellate authority did not even say a word as with regard to the comment/objection of the petitioner to the findings recorded in the impugned order. According to Mr. Sinha such procedure of disposal of departmental proceeding is not only in violation of the principles of natural justice but also contrary to the statutory rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner namely, Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976.