Tapabrata Chakraborty J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 17th September, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 2162 of 2000 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of a charge sheet dated 10th April, 1997, was dismissed.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that when the appellant was working in the post of Chief Officer in the Inspection Department of the United Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the said bank) a charge sheet consisting of six charges was issued against him on 10th April, 1997. The appellant duly replied to the said charge sheet on 19th April, 1997 and upon conducting an inquiry, the inquiry officer filed his report on 3rd February, 1999. The said inquiry report was forwarded to the appellant along with a letter dated 22nd April, 1999 issued by the disciplinary authority recording his reasons for disagreement with the views expressed by the inquiry officer in respect of the charge Nos. I and V. By the said letter an opportunity was granted to the appellant to file his written submission and the appellant duly submitted the same on 26th April, 1999. The disciplinary authority duly considered the appellant's written submission and passed the final order of punishment on 6th April, 2000 imposing a punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved by the said order, a statutory appeal was preferred by the appellant but the same was also dismissed and the order of the disciplinary authority was confirmed on 8th May, 2000. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant approached this Court through the instant writ petition and the same upon contested hearing was dismissed by an order dated 17th September, 2012.
(3.) Mr. Sur, learned advocate appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner argues that the appellant was not granted any opportunity to deal with the disagreement note of the disciplinary authority. Out of the six charges, the inquiry officer found the charge no. I partly proved, the charge Nos. II, III and VI proved and the charge Nos. IV and V not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer in respect of charge Nos. I and V without granting any opportunity to the appellant to deal with the disagreement note.;