- (1.) The petitioner prays for setting aside the entire disciplinary proceeding, the enquiry report, the order of penalty of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner also prays for releasing her arrear salary, and all terminal benefits in view of her superannuation. A prayer has also been made for declaring the rule/policy of the bank causing forfeiture of leave encashment or lapse of leave on termination of service as unconstitutional and arbitrary.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was an officer of the UCO Bank. When the petitioner was serving as the Senior Manager posted in the Inspection Department in the Zonal Office Kolkata she was called by the disciplinary authority on 2 nd August, 2016 and enquired about ten RTGS transactions amounting to Rs. 8.9 crore. The Zonal Manager, Kolkata zone on 6 th August, 2016 sought for an explanation from the petitioner as to why disciplinary action would not be taken against her with reference to the investigation report of the vigilance department dated 28th July, 2016. The petitioner duly submitted her reply on 19 th August, 2016 denying the charges levelled against her. A further notice was issued on 3 rd September, 2016 seeking her explanation with regard to the various accounts that were opened during her tenure in the Bank. Reference was again made to the investigation report of the vigilance department. The petitioner submitted her explanation thereto vide her letter dated 6th September, 2016. Vide a communication dated 10 th February, 2017 the petitioner was intimated that the bank proposed to hold an enquiry against her in respect of the charges set out in the statement of allegations and the articles of charges. The petitioner was required to submit a written statement in her defence. The petitioner by a letter dated 21st February, 2017 denied the charges levelled against her. The written statement filed by the petitioner not being found satisfactory the Bank proceeded to hold an enquiry against her. Inquiry officer and a presenting officer was appointed.
(3.) The petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceeding and the inquiry officer filed the report on 10th July, 2017. The disciplinary authority on 14th December, 2017 passed an order of penalty dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal and by an order dated 23rd May, 2018 the appellate authority affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority.;