BYAS MUNI OJHA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank.

(2.) THE petitioner, an employee of the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") in this writ application has assailed the order dated 16.4.04 passed by the Regional Manager -cum - Disciplinary Authority of the Bank inflicting punishment of compulsory retirement in terms of Clause 4 (h) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 as also the appellate order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Assistant General Manager -cum - Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and thereby affirming the aforementioned impugned order of punishment dated 16.4.04 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. A consequential relief has also been sought by the petitioner by way of seeking his reinstatement in service of the Bank as also for treating him to be on duty in the intervening period between 16.4.04 and till the date of joining upon reinstatement. The admitted fact giving rise to the present writ application in brief is that the petitioner, an employee of the bank, was initially appointed on 28.5.70 as a clerk -cum -cashier. He was promoted on 28.2.82 on the post of Sub -Accountant and in the year 1996 he was also confirmed on a redesignated post of Sub -Accountant, namely Assistant Manager. The petitioner claims that he had an unblemished and in fact a satisfactory service record and it was only for the first time in a span of more than 29 years of his service in the bank he was subjected to a departmental proceeding in the year 1999 when he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding in the month of July, 1999. It appears that a charge -sheet dated 13.4.01 was issued and served on the petitioner and thereafter upon completion of the enquiry, the report of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to him on 14.9.02 eliciting his response to the finding in the enquiry report. The enquiry however was not concluded and no final order was passed in the disciplinary proceedings even when the petitioner has promptly submitted his comments on the findings of the enquiry report and the Bank in fact by an order dated 4.8.03 had taken a decision to hold a de novo enquiry.

(3.) IT is also not in dispute that the petitioner had participated in the said de novo enquiry and the Enquiry Officer had submitted his fresh enquiry report, a copy thereof was again given to the petitioner on 29.1.04 directing him to submit his comments on the findings in the aforesaid enquiry report. The petitioner in fact had also submitted reply to the findings in the enquiry report whereafter the impugned order of punishment dated 16.4.04 inflicting punishment of compulsory retirement had been passed against him. Thereafter the appeal of the petitioner against the aforementioned order of punishment filed on 25.5.04 was also rejected by the appellate authority by his order dated 22.12.2004 affirming the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority.