(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY virtue of the order dated 14.7.2004 contained in Annexure -2, order of punishment was passed against the petitioner. The punishment is of compulsory retirement from Bank service. This order of punishment has been affirmed by the appellate authority and this order is dated 20.05.2005 and is Annexure -1 to the writ application. Both Annexure -1 and 2 are, therefore, impugned orders in the present writ application.
(3.) PETITIONER has tried to demonstrate before this Court that the so -called allegation of unauthorised leave for which petitioner had allegedly obtained payment of salary etc. stands disproved. According to the enquiry officer himself the allegation of unauthorised absence for the period 1.1.2000 to 12.2.2000 i.e. for 43 days was not proved. The only period, therefore, which was left was 27.2.2000 to 13.3.2000 i.e. about 16 days. Petitioner states that he was transferred from Pipra Branch on 23.2.2000 and he gave his joining in the Zonal Office at Muzaffarpur. 24.2.2000 was a Sunday and he was present in the Zonal Office from 25.2.2000 to 26.2.2000. On 26.2.2000 petitioner was posted at Nayagaon Branch. On posting at Nayagaon Branch petitioner remained in transit leave from 27.2.2000 to 5.3.2000 i.e. for 8 days. According to the petitioner in terms of the relevant Rules relating to supervising staff he was entitled to 8 days of transit leave. Petitioner states that he remained on medical leave from 6.3.2000 to 13.3.2000 i.e. another 8 days and he thereafter joined on 14.3.2000. After his joining on 14.3.2000 at Nayagaon Branch at the close of business he was transferred to J.C. Road i.e. Patna Zonal Office where he joined on 15.3.2000. According to the petitioner, therefore, he was on duty from 1.1.2000 to 15.3.2000 but the authorities in question intentionally ignored this fact despite official evidences being available on record. Petitioner has brought these official documents as Annexure -7, 7/1 and 7/2 in support of his averments.