KRISHNA KUMAR JHA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Case of the petitioner, in short, is that the petitioner while working as Branch Manager, Barbindia Branch, was suddenly suspended vide order dated 21.11.2011 issued by respondent No.2 on the allegation that he has misused the official position by unauthorized debiting the accounts of K.I. Estate Branch and Barbindia Branch by crediting the amounts to various accounts of his relatives and his own account. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 01.06.2012 and charge-sheet was issued on 10.12.2012 mentioning to proceed against the petitioner under Regulation 6 of the Bank of India Office Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. The petitioner denied the charge vide his letter dated 21.12.2012. Thereafter, vide letter dated 24.12.2012 departmental enquiry was initiated and Sri Deb Prasad Ray, Senior Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Vide letter dated 24.01.2013 a corrigendum was also issued with respect to the memorandum of charge. Further case of the petitioner is that after noticing so many typographical errors and clerical errors in issuing the article of charges, statement of allegations, list of documents and witnesses, which were not ratified even in the corrigendum, respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 19.02.2013 stopped further proceeding of the departmental enquiry till further instruction. Subsequently respondent No.3 issued a fresh memorandum dated 25.02.2013 for the memo of charge against the petitioner mentioning therein the article of charges, statement of allegations, list of documents and witnesses. Realizing that some mistake has occurred with respect to account number even in the fresh memorandum dated 25.02.2013, again a corrigendum dated 02.05.2013 was issued. Specific case of the petitioner is that immediately thereafter the departmental enquiry was concluded and Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 29.06.2013 and by letter dated 18.07.2013 petitioner was directed to submit his reply within five days, to which the petitioner replied vide his letter dated 26.07.2013, but without considering his reply, the respondents- authorities passed the order of major punishment of dismissal which remained sustained by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority. It is also stated that during the enquiry proceedings, an F.I.R. bearing Govindpur P.S. Case No.142/2013 dated 08.04.2013 was lodged by the respondents against the petitioner under Sections 406 , 409 , 420 IPC for the same set of allegations, in which Final Form has been submitted which has been accepted. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Bank of India Office Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 and hence, he has knocked the door of this Court.

(3.) Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned orders on the following grounds: