TAPEN SEN,J. - (1.) In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner, Nilotpal Roy Chowdhury, has prayed for a Declaration declaring that the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on the basis of the Charge-sheet dated 17/2/2005, are null and void. He has further prayed that the Respondents be directed to withdraw the charge-sheet, issued by the Chairman, Sagar Gramin Bank (now Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank). Other consequential prayers have been made including a prayer directing the Respondents to withdraw the decision of the Appellate Authority passed on 03/03/2006, as communicated to the Petitioner vide Memo dated 10/4/2006. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the 'Report' of the Enquiry Officer dated 23/3/2005.
(2.) The facts which have led to the filing of this case is that on 17th of February, 2005, the Chairman-cum-Competent Authority of the Sagar Gamin Bank (now Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank) issued a charge-sheet against the Petitioner informing him, inter alia, that he had violated Regulations 17, 19 and 30 of the Sagar Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the '1980 Regulations') and, therefore, he was required to file his explanation within 10 (ten) days, failing which, the Bank would take action against him. It appears that thereafter the Chairman passed an Order of punishment on 22/11/2005 informing him that by virtue of powers conferred upon him under the provisions of the aforementioned 1980 Regulations, he proposed to impose the punishment of lowering the Petitioner down by 8 (eight) stages of increment from his present basic pay. This Order was then communicated to the Petitioner by Memo dated 16/12/2005, as contained in Annexure P-4. It appears that the Petitioner preferred an Appeal but it was not considered since it was not filed within 30 days, as required under the provisions of Clause 31 of the said 1980 Regulations because the said Appeal was received by the Head office on 22/2/2006. Thereafter, it is admitted by the learned senior Counsel for the Respondents that the Petitioner filed another Appeal on 09/8/2007, which has not been considered because it was beyond time and because the first Appeal was already not considered for the same reason.
(3.) Upon a perusal of the aforementioned facts and also upon a perusal of the documents, brought on record, it is thus, evident that the highest Officer of the Bank has proceeded against the Petitioner under the 1980 Regulations, referred to above. In other words, the charge-sheet was issued under the 1980 Regulations, the enquiry was held under the 1980 Regulations, the punishment was imposed under the 1980 Regulations and the Appeal was also rejected on the ground that it was beyond time and not as per the time fixed under the 1980 Regulations.;