SUNIL KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. KALAHANDI ANCHALIKA GRAMYA BANK
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sunil Kumar Mohanty
Kalahandi Anchalika Gramya Bank
Click here to view full judgement.
Biswanath Rath, J. -
(1.) This writ petition involves the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue notice to the opp. parties calling upon them to show cause as to why the disciplinary authority order dated 31.7.2001 in Annexure-18 and the appellate Authority order confirming the disciplinary authority order dated 18.5.2002 in Annexure-24 shall not be quashed;
If the Opp. parties fail to show cause or give insufficient cause, make the rule absolute by quashing Annexurs-18 and 24 and issue a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and grant all consequential service benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law within a stipulated period of two months from the date of passing of the order;
And pass such order/order(s), direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."
(2.) Short background involving the case is that petitioner joined as a Branch Manager in the erstwhile Kalahandi Anchalika Gramya Bank, Sagada Branch, Kalahandi on 23.11.1981. During his service career, petitioner dependant on a departmental proceeding was already imposed with major penalty and while continuing as such, petitioner was served with charge-sheet, vide Annexure-1 on 25.07.1994 on the premises of violation of provisions under Regulation 19, 22(2), 30(1) of Kalahandi Anchalika Gramya Bank (Staff) Service Regulation, 1980 (in short 'KAGB Regulation, 1980'). Disciplinary Proceeding was concluded in participation of the petitioner based on the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted on 14.03.2001. Chairman as Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner from Bank service under Regulation 30(1) of KAGB Regulation, 1980, however with liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal. In the meantime entertaining the review application, the Disciplinary Authority kept the final order of punishment in abeyance asking the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence to the enquiry report, which order was again recalled by the Chairman by his order dated 03.08.2001 asking the petitioner to file appeal before the Appellate Authority. Petitioner preferred appeal. In the meantime for non-disposal of the appeal, petitioner preferred O.J.C. No.3285 of 2002 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority for early disposal of this appeal within a period of four months. Appellate Authority in the meantime disposed of the appeal with an order of dismissal of the appeal on 18.5.2002, vide Annexure-24.
(3.) Mr.J.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner taking this Court to the fact that petitioner has already been superannuated requesting the Hon'ble Court instead of entering into the merit involving the enquiry proceeding, vis- -vis, the order of the Disciplinary Authority for converting the punishment by order of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement, more particularly keeping in view the fact that petitioner is suffering throughout his life for the dismissal order on his head. Taking this Court to the charges involving the petitioner and the establishment of charges through the enquiry proceeding on the premises of involvement of minimal allegations being established through the enquiry report, Sri Rath, learned Senior Advocate attempted to justify his request for modification of the final order of dismissal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.