PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. PALAMAU KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order of appointment dated 27.12.1994 passed by respondent No. 2 the Board of Directors of Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank being the appellate authority in a departmental proceeding whereby the award of with -holding five increments have been reduced to three increments.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as officer in Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank (in short Bank) in 1983 and was posted as Branch Manager, Dumaria in the district of Garhwa. In September, 1987 he was posted at Hussainabad Block at Jharia and in 1991 he was transferred to Loharsi in Panki Block and from there to Tetrai Branch of the Bank in June 1991 and then Dalton -ganj Branch. In 1992, petitioner was put under suspension on the charges causing irregularities and carelessness during the period 1986 to 1990 and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Petitioners further case is that in the said departmental proceeding the order of punishment was passed and against that order he filed appeal before the Board of Directors who is the appellate authority. The Board of Directors in its meeting considered the appeal of the petitioner and ordered to the Inquiry Officer to allow proper opportunity to the petitioner and to provide him the documents so demanded by the petitioner. It is alleged that inspite of specific direction, documents were not supplied to the petitioner and the matter was again considered by the Bard of Directors in its meeting held on 31.8.1993 and the Board of Directors further directed to make available the documents to the petitioner. The appeal of the petitioner remained pending. Petitioner was supplied only two documents and was not allowed to peruse all the documents as the documents were not made available to the petitioners. It appears that a separate charge sheet was also served upon the petitioner on 9.11.1992 and ex parte inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and order of punishment was passed for reduction of four increments and against that order petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority. However, the appeal filed before the Board against two punishments was finally disposed of by the impugned order.

(3.) MR . Prasad firstly submitted that petitioner was not heard properly both by the Inquiry Officer and the appellate authority and even the documents so demanded by the petitioner was not supplied to him. It is therefore contended that the inquiry was pending awaiting the Boards decision and in fact without supplying all the documents the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on, the basis of which impugned order of punishment was passed.