TAPAN KUMAR DUTT,J. - (1.) Today when this matter is called out for hearing, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, but even if the writ petition is entertained on merits, the writ petition should be dismissed as it is without any merit.
(2.) It appears that the writ petitioner was served with certain suspension order which was followed by a charge-sheet. It appears from the record that one Smt. K. Nadira, Clerk of Port Blair Municipal Council branch did not attend the office on a certain day without sanction of leave, and the Probationary Assistant Manager of Directorate of Health Services branch, Port Blair, who was on deputation to Port Blair Municipal Council branch during the relevant period marked the said Smt. Nadira as absent in the attendance register concerned. When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fact, he contacted the Branch Manager of Port Blair Municipal Council branch and, subsequently, he went to the Port Blair Municipal Council branch and questioned the said Probationary Assistant Manager as to how he could mark the said Smt. Nadira as absent on the said day. It appears that the writ petitioner got furious with the reply of the said Probationary Assistant Manager and abused him with filthy and unparliamentary language in front of the customers and the Branch Manager and he also made derogatory remarks against the senior officers of the Bank, as would appear from the order passed by the Appellate Authority itself. Ultimately, an enquiry was made and that on conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his findings by the report dated 28.05.2010 and came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner have been proved conclusively in the enquiry. Considering the gravity of the acts and of the proven misconduct, the disciplinary authority offered an opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the authority for a personal hearing in the matter of the proposed punishment "Reduction in Basic Pay by Two stages for a period of Two Years for each of two Gross Misconducts." Subsequently, however, the disciplinary authority took a lenient view of the matter and the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of "Reduction in BP by Two stages for a period of One Year" based on the enquiry proceedings. The appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority considering the facts and circumstances of the case concurred with the view of the disciplinary authority and confirmed the punishment. The Appellate Authority further ordered that the period of suspension of the petitioner is treated as "Not on Duty" and the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages or notional increment or consequential benefits whatsoever, for the period of suspension other than what has been paid to the petitioner as subsistence allowance.
(3.) The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits that the respondent authorities are guilty of not complying with the principles of natural justice. Such submissions on behalf of the petitioner is baseless, as it appears that from the annexures to the writ petition itself, that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner to represent his case and the respondent authorities have come to their conclusions only after considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The order of the disciplinary authority itself will show that the disciplinary authority considered all the aspects of the matter and came to its conclusion. The Appellate Authority has also considered the facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter passed a reasoned order. This Court is of the view that there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is without any merit and is, thus, dismissed. No order as to costs.;