VINEET SARAN, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Saumitra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Bank and have perused the record.
(2.) The petitioner is Cashier in the respondent Bank of Baroda. On four occasions in the year 2002, when he was posted in Surya Nagar Branch at Ghaziabad, the petitioner was advised/warned by the Branch Manager regarding his working. However, since such incidents were happening repeatedly, on December 23, 2002 the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, he was reinstated in service on December 4, 2003. Then on March 13, 2004 a charge-sheet was issued by the Assistant General Manager (as disciplinary authority), to the petitioner giving details of the four charges. An enquiry by the Branch Manager, KCM School Branch, Moradabad was to be conducted into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Through the Employees' Union, the petitioner made a representation to the Assistant General Manager on June 26, 2004 that since the petitioner had been issued warnings by the Branch Manager who, according to the petitioner, was the disciplinary authority, such warnings ought to be treated as final orders and fresh enquiry in regard to such charges could not be made. As no order had been passed on the said representation of the petitioner through the Employees' Union, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 35815 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court on September 2, 2004 with a direction that the application of the petitioner dated June 26, 2004 (which was actually by the Employees' Union) be decided by a speaking order, in accordance with law, within four weeks and for a period of six weeks the enquiry proceedings had been stayed. By an order dated December 7, 2004 the representation dated June 26, 2004 has been disposed of wherein it has been held that the earlier warnings issued to the petitioner for his conduct regarding four instances were merely advisory letters issued to him and such advice could not be termed as final decision of the disciplinary authority.
(3.) The petitioner has thus filed this writ petition challenging the order dated December 7, 2004 as well as the charge-sheet dated March 13, 2004.;