M.L. Bhatt, J. - (1.) THE petitioner challenged the order of suspension dated 16.6.1993 on the ground that the suspension order does not show as to whether any enquiry is pending or contemplated nor is the gist of charges disclosed in the suspension order. No charge -sheet has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner's appointing authority is the duly elected committee of management. The action of the respondents is, therefore, bad. The order of suspension is mala fide. The persons who are controlling the affairs of the Bank, are misusing their position. Some members of the society have already challenged the rights of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 through a writ petition before the High Court, which has irritated the respondents. The impugned order of suspension dated 16.6.1993 says that as decided in the meeting of the Board of Directors dated 13.6.1993 the petitioner is placed under suspension. He will be soon given charge -sheet. When this matter came up for consideration the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is a Field Officer, therefore, this Bench has no jurisdiction to consider the matter. According to Mr. Sankatha Rai the petitioner is a Class II employee of the Bank, therefore, Division Bench of this Court can take cognizance of the matter. However, it is contended by the other side that the petitioner is only a Class III employee and is drawing only Rs. 1,600/ - as salary, therefore, the petition is cognizable by this Bench. It is stated that the petitioner was given the charge of Field Officer but he was never made a Field Officer nor was he given the pay -scale of Field Officer, therefore, he cannot be held to be an officer belonging to Class II category. It was contended that an Officer, who belongs to Class II category is necessarily to draw Rs. 3,000/ - and above as salary. The petitioner's salary was only Rs. 1,600/ -, therefore, the petitioner belongs to Class III category. In para 12 of the counter -affidavit it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1987 as cashier on daily wages basis vide resolution of the Board of Directors dated 25.4.1987 and he was continuing as such. His services are not yet regularised or confirmed. In para 13 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner is not a permanent employee of the Bank. He was assigned the duties of Field Officer w.e.f. 13.12.1989. From the combined reading of paras. 12 and 13 of the counter -affidavit it is clear that the petitioner is holding the post of Cashier substantively and he may have been given the charge of Field Officer temporarily, according to the respondents, therefore, he cannot be treated to belong to Class II category. An application was also filed by the respondents that the petitioner is a Field Officer, therefore, the writ petition is not cognizable by this Court. Reply was filed to that application. In view of the averments made in the counter -affidavit it cannot be said that the petitioner is holding the post of Class II Officer substantively. He belongs to Class III category, therefore, this petition is cognizable by this Bench. The learned counsel submitted that in case this Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter, the writ petition may be decided finally on merits because counter affidavit and rejoinder -affidavit have been exchanged. Therefore, I have proceeded to decide this petition finally.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record along with the counter -affidavit a copy of charge -sheet, which was, according to the respondents, served on the petitioner. Charge No. 1 relates to the petitioner not informing the Bank about the withdrawals of the deposits. The deposits are said to have been withdrawn in the month of February, 1992 without prior intimation. Likewise, the deposits made after that were also withdrawn soon. The petitioner is said to have been given the work of increasing the deposits. It is alleged that he failed to inform as to whether he completed the balance work. In January, 1993 the petitioner is said to have been given the job of deposits mainly and he is said to have given assurances that the deposits would increase and he is said to have been reluctant to work on the job of deposits on the ground of scandal of securities, which had come to light then. He is said to have got the speeches delivered against the authorities, which damages the reputation of the Bank. The business of the bank was affected by the said speeches, therefore, the petitioner's integrity and sincerity has become doubtful. The second charge is regarding the petitioner's having used photostat copies of minute book of the managing committee and other document for his personal use. Charge No. 3 is that the petitioner is said to have connived with one Sri Surendra Kumar Sharma for defaming the management of the Bank and tried to remove the same by organising meetings. Charge No. 4 relates to the petitioner's having incited one Sri Surendra Kumar Sharma for re -entry in the Bank after he was relieved from the Bank. The petitioner is said to have written letters to the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Labour Commissioner in which he made serious allegations against the management, Secretary and Chairman of the Bank.
(3.) CHARGE No. 5 relates to the petitioner's having made allegations against the committee of Management in his letter dated 5.1.1993 in which the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was being implicated in false matters by the authorities. There were wild allegations against the management. Charge No. 6 relates to the complaint of Kailash Pandey, which is made by him under the influence of the petitioner against the management. Charge No. 7 relates to the petitioner's threat to submit resignation of the managing committee and taking part in the election of the managing committee for getting himself appointed as Administrator. Charge No. 8 relates to the petitioner's alleged refusal to accept the letter dated 17.6.1993 of Sri Mehrotra. The petitioner is said to have used filthy language against his senior officers. Charge No. 9 relates to the petitioner's having remained absent without getting the leave sanctioned. It is stated that the leave application of the petitioner dated 14.6.1993 was not granted. The medical certificate submitted by the petitioner is said to be false as he remained in Allahabad in the substance of Charge No. 10. Charge No. 11 says that the petitioner leaves the Bank during working hours, which was verified by the Secretary on his inspection to the Bank.;