SUDHIR NATH MODI Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 18.07.2002, Annexure-8 issued by the respondent No. 4, Chief Manager (HRD), Bank of India, Jamshedpur whereby he has been imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. He has also challenged the Appellate Order dated 09.12.2002, Annexure-9 issued by the respondent No. 3, Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Jamshedpur, by which the penalty has been confirmed and his appeal has been rejected. The petitioner is also aggrieved vide order dated 17.12.2003, Annexure-10 issued by the respondent No. 2, General Manager (HR), Bank of India, Star House C/5, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai whereby his review application has also been rejected and the Original Order of punishment has been upheld. Consequently, he has prayed for reinstatement upon quashing of the aforesaid orders.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Agricultural Clerk in the respondent-Bank and promoted as Grade-II Officer and posted at different places. He was posted as Branch Manager, Nawalsahi Branch Koderma district and transferred and posted at Jhumri Telaiya in 1996. Later on, while he was posted on deputation in Singhbhum Gramin Bank at Chaibasa. Vide letters dated 17.08.1999 and 05.04.2000 (Annexure-1 and 2 respectively), he was served with charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet in respect of initiation of the departmental proceeding for total number of nine charges. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply vide Annexure-3 series which includes the letter of the complainants and challans etc. Upon conclusion of the enquiry the report was submitted vide Annexure-6 dated 28.12.2001 and the petitioner asked to furnish his detailed reply which he did vide Annexure-7 dated 11.01.2002 denying all the charges, which, however were found to be established against him. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 18.07.2002. Annexure-8 has been issued imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. The Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority has confirmed the Original Order vide order dated 09.12.2002 and 17.12.2003 Annexure-9 and 10 respectively.

(3.) It is contention of the petitioner that the alleged charges have not been supported by the witnesses on whose complaint, the articles of charges were framed who were also shown in the list of witnesses as part of the charge sheet. The important witness i.e. Siteshwar Ram and Mathura Saw have not been examined to establish the charges by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already left the place of his posting after being transferred and the period of three years have elapsed since then the charge sheet was issued. He has also relied upon Annexure-5 which is guidelines issued in respect of the transfer of charge by outgoing Branch Manager to his successor. As per the said guidelines, he has completely handed over the charge to his successor and therefore, none of the allegations in respect of his previous place of posting relating to the alleged charges can be said to be sustainable against the present petitioner.