NAWNIT KUMAR Vs. PALAMAU KSHETRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the orders dated July 29, 1994, passed by the Disciplinary authority and also the order dated December 23, 1994 (Annexure-25), passed by the Appellate authority, whereby the appellate authority awarded punishment to the petitioner by way of reduction of one annual increment from his basic pay with effect from July 29, 1994 and treating the entire period as a period of suspension.

(2.) THE petitioner was in service of the respondent-Bank and as claimed by him, he was the General Secretary of the Bank worker's Organisation, Daltonganj Palamav which was a registered body. On February 14, 1992, the petitioner alongwith five others were placed under suspension with effect from february 15, 1992. On February 20, 1992, he was served with a chargesheet by the respondent No. 4, the General Manager of the respondent Bank, the charges read as follows :

(3.) THE petitioner filed his show cause reply to the chargesheet of the respondents denying all the allegations levelled against him. The show cause replies were not accepted by the Management and the Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The enquiry was conducted by one Mridul Kr. Sinha as the Enquiry Officer. It was decided by the Management that the' Chairman would be disciplinary authority and the Board of directors would be the appellate authority in the said proceeding. During the pendency of the enquiry, the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked vide office order dated September 19, 1992. The Enquiry Officer after concluding the enquiry submitted his Report with his finding that except the Charge No. 1 that the petitioner was present in the Official chambers of the General Manager and the Charge No. 3 that the petitioner was found unauthorisedly absent during working hours, the other charges were found not proved. A copy of the Enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and in response thereto, the petitioner filed his written submissions before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, however, had differed from the Enquiry Report holding that all the charges have been proved against the petitioner and accordingly, passed an order reducing two annual increments in the basic pay of the petitioner and treating the entire period as the period of suspension. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. After considering the submissions of the petitioner, the appellate authority by its order dated July 12, 1994 affirmed the findings of the disciplinary authority. However, the appellate authority reduced the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority by confining it to reduction of one annual increment with effect from July 19, 1994.