Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This Mandamus Appeal is directed against the judgment and/or order passed by learned single judge of this court on 31st March, 2015 in W.P. No. 7537(W) of 2015 at the instance of the writ petitioner. An order of punishment by way of dismissal of the petitioner from service passed by Chairman of the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank on December, 11, 2012 was challenged by the writ petitioner in the said writ petition.
(2.) Though there is a long chequered history behind this litigation but for the time being suffice is to mention that the said writ petition was filed challenging the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner by virtue of the leave granted by the appeal Court while disposing of the appeal being AST No. 354 of 2012.
(3.) The writ petition was ultimately dismissed with costs and the order of punishment dated 11th December, 2012 was approved by the Writ Court. The instant Mandamus Appeal is directed against the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court. The reason which prompted, the learned Single Judge to dismiss the said appeal are set out hereunder:- "In the present case, the disciplinary authority narrated the charges, which spoke for themselves, and the disciplinary authority indicated his concurrence with the findings rendered by the inquiry officer. The petitioner had, willy nilly, not questioned either the substance of the inquiry report or the substance of the charges levelled against him. To the extent the petitioner questioned the conduct of the inquiry officer, the same has been addressed by the disciplinary authority in paragraph 2(a) of the order of punishment of December 11, 2012. When a superior authority agrees with a view taken by an inferior authority or a subsequent order is based on a previous reasoned order, elaborate reasons need not be indicated afresh since the reasons ought to be contained in the decision of the inferior authority or the previous order. What is necessary is the application of the mind to the matters in issue. In the present case, the disciplinary authority dealt with the scurrilous allegations made by the petitioner against the inquiry officer without the petitioner deigning to participate in the inquiry proceedings. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, referred to the charges which were eloquent and self-explanatory and concurred with the findings of the inquiry officer thereon. Given the circumstances in this case and the failure of the petitioner to indicate any substantial defence to the findings of the inquiry officer or the tentative view taken by the disciplinary authority, no more was necessary. As a footnote, it may be noticed that the charges against the petitioner pertained to the declaration of funds from the accounts of the bank's constituents on repeated occasions.;