ARINDAM SINHA, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioner was employed by the respondent United Bank of India mainly for his achievements in the field of football as a player. He was posted at the Howrah Branch of the bank when he received memo dated 30th June, 2004 informing him disciplinary action was contemplated against him and he was suspended with immediate effect. The Disciplinary Authority by letter dated 23rd November, 2004 delivered the article of charge and the statement of allegations. By a further letter dated 31st January, 2005 the charge -sheet issued earlier was amended. The inquiry proceeding was held and inquiry report dated 24th March, 2005 submitted.
(2.) UPON consideration of the inquiry report, by letter dated 11th May, 2005 the Disciplinary Authority imposed upon the petitioner the major punishment of dismissal from the bank's service with immediate effect which shall ordinarily be disqualification for future employment. On appeal preferred therefrom the Appellate Authority by his order dated 2nd September, 2005 confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed two of several points that he had raised by way of argument. Firstly, he submitted, there was only one charge brought against the petitioner but it would appear from the inquiry report that the Inquiry Officer proceeded against the petitioner taking the allegations in the statement of allegations to be charges brought against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority in its turn proceeded in the same manner in agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. According to him this was non - application of mind apparent on the face of the record which vitiated the inquiry proceeding and anything done pursuant thereto. The reasonableness or otherwise of the order of the Appellate Authority could not justify the non -application of mind that had gone before as otherwise it would amount to substitution of the non -application of mind of the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority by the order of the Appellate Authority where the inquiry proceeding was itself bad which went to the root of the matter.
(3.) MR . Saha Roy next submitted that in any event there was no reason disclosed in the order of the Disciplinary Authority for finding agreement with the inquiry report and thereupon awarding major punishment. In the circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to maintain his challenge against the said charge -sheet as amended, the inquiry report, the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order of the Appellate Authority. To emphasize the points made Mr. Saha Roy relied upon the decision reported in (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 407 (Raviyashwant Bhoir Vs. Collector), in paragraph 8 of which judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court had declared it is a settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order.;