- (1.) The petitioner was working as an officer in the Deccan Grameena Bank, the 1st respondent herein, in MMGS-II category, in the year 2005. A memo dated 27.08.2005 was served upon him alleging that he resorted to certain irregularities in the matter of extending the benefit of crop insurance to the borrowers from the Bank. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.09.2005. Not being satisfied with that, the 1st respondent issued a charge memo dated 19.11.2005 framing two charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 10.12.2005. The 1st respondent appointed an inquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted a report dated 15.12.2006 holding that the Charge No.1 is proved and that Charge No.2 is not proved.
(2.) The disciplinary authority issued a memo dated 03.03.2007 to the petitioner stating that he has differed with the finding of the inquiry officer on Charge No.2 and directed the petitioner to give explanation as to why, the punishment of compulsory retirement from Bank's service, shall not be imposed. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.03.2007. On a consideration of the same, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 30.06.2007 imposing the punishment of reduction to lower grade from officer, MMGS-II to officer JMGS-I and reduction of the pay scale in JMGS-I cadre to the last stage, with cumulative effect. However, it was observed that the next increment for the petitioner shall become due one month after the date of the order.
(3.) The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent herein, against the order dated 30.06.2007. The 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 24.12.2007 to the petitioner, directing him to explain as to why, a more severe punishment be, not imposed. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.01.2008. Through its order dated 20.05.2008, the appellate authority imposed the punishment reducing the grade of the petitioner from officer, MMGS-II to officer JMGS-I and reducing his pay scale in JMGS-I cadre by three stages, below the last grade. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said proceedings of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. He contends that the disciplinary authority did not issue any show cause notice before it differed with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and so the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. He further submits that the 2nd respondent is not vested with the power to enhance the punishment.;