SURESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent-State.

(2.) The short point advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that in the proceedings conducted against the petitioner, the procedure prescribed under Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for brevity, Bihar CCA Rules) , which provides the course of action to be adopted by the Disciplinary Authority on the enquiry report, has been violated in the instant case.

(3.) The brief and undisputed facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that one charge memo was served upon the petitioner containing seven charges on Prapatra Ka dated 08.11.2007. The seven charges were framed alleging several incidences showing that the petitioner had done dereliction of his duties. While working as the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank, Charge No 1 alleges that the inspection of the Cooperative Bank was done by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development and due to irregularities detected, there had been a ban on operations of the Bank. Charge No 2 was a mere extension of the first charge. Charge No 3 alleged that recovery of the loan was not up to the mark during the period petitioner was posted in the respondent-Cooperative Bank and that he was not supervising or controlling the affairs of the Bank properly. The other charges were in respect of some minor allegations in respect of the petitioner being absent from the Bank on account of his implication in some criminal case and that there was some delayed recovery of loan advanced to some cold storage loanees. The other two allegations, namely, allegations 6 and 7 were alleging unsatisfactory performance by the petitioner that he had violated the transfer order dated 04.06.2005 as he had been allegedly relieved on 16.06.2005, but joined at the transferred place on 01.07.2005.