TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred challenging the entire disciplinary proceeding initiated on the basis of the charge -sheet dated 16th February, 2006 including the order of the Appellate Authority dated 8th August, 2007.
(2.) THE facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner joined on 1st October, 1997 as a Clerk under the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as SBI). As a bolt from the blue the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 18th May, 2005 and subsequent thereto a charge -sheet was issued on 16th February, 2006 containing 26 articles of charge. The Inquiring Authority was appointed on 31st March, 2006 and after conclusion of the said enquiry, a report was filed by the Inquiry Officer on 19th September, 2006. The petitioner replied to the said enquiry report and the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order on 2nd January, 2007, imposing a punishment of dismissal. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal but the same was also rejected by an order dated 8th August, 2007. By way of a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record the entire enquiry proceeding. During pendency of the writ application, the petitioner attain the age of superannuation on 31st October, 2013. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner recommended only 13 loan applications as per guidelines mentioned in the House Loan Document Set and on the basis of the said recommendation the sanctioning authority, being the Assistant General Manager of the Brabourne Road Branch at Calcutta sanctioned the loan. After issuance of the charge -sheet, the petitioner made a representation dated 5th March, 2006 praying for inspection of the documents. The same was followed by representations dated 17th May, 2006 and 30th May, 2006. The respondents, however, did not respond to the said representations and as such the petitioner made a further representation dated 13th March, 2006 to the Disciplinary Authority, being the respondent no.2 with a prayer for extension of time to enable him to reply to the charge -sheet. But such prayer was rejected by an order dated 30th March, 2006 and on the very next date the said respondent no.2 appointed the Inquiring Authority. After conclusion of the said enquiry, the report was filed on 19th September, 2006 and the same was replied to by the petitioner through a representation dated 11th October, 2006.
(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Bhattacharya, the petitioner was not granted a reasonable opportunity to reply to the charge -sheet and the respondent no.2 illegally rejected the petitioner's prayer for extension of time by the order dated 30th March, 2006 and the said order is a cryptic one. He draws the attention of this Court to the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 2nd January, 2007 and submits the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the petitioner's reply to the enquiry report. The said order does not reveal any reason towards imposition of the penalty, save and except reiteration of the findings of the Inquiry Authority.;