P.PATNAIK,J. - (1.) Assailing the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Disciplinary authority and Appellate authority, the instant writ application has been filed for quashing of the finding of the Inquiry Officer vide Annexure-3 and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority under Annexures-5 and 7.
(2.) The brief facts which are germane to the writ application are required to be stated infra. The petitioner initially joined in the Union Bank of India in the year 1984 in the post of Casher-cum-Clerk and after his joining, he has discharged his duty to the utmost satisfaction of his authority without any blemish. While continuing as such at Ambagaon branch as Clerk-cum- Cashier a memorandum of charges for certain omission and commission and irregularities were served on the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation. The gravamen of the charge is quoted herein below: i) Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank involving or likely to involve the bank in monetary loss. ii) Willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank. iii) Engaging trade/business outside the scope of his duties. iv) Breach of rule of business of the Bank or instruction for running of any department. In response to the alleged charges, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges in toto. However, not being satisfied with the explanation, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and Inquiry Officer was appointed and after inquiry, inquiry report was submitted along with suggestion for punishment. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply on proposed punishment and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the order of punishment on the petitioner vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary authority the petitioner preferred appeal before the opposite party No.5 and the appellate authority rejected the appeal thereby confirming the order of punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved by the perfunctory findings of the Inquiry Officer and the impugned order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate authority the petitioner has filed the instant writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.
(3.) Controverting the averments made in the writ application a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party-Bank wherein it has been submitted that on the basis of charge sheet a Departmental Proceeding was initiated and the petitioner participated in the said enquiry by submitting his written defence along with documents. He has also cross-examined the management witnesses. The Inquiry officer after going through the documents and the reply of both the parties has finally given its finding by holding that charge No.1 is proved, charge no.2 is partly proved and charge no.3 has not been proved. The said finding of the Inquiry Officer was communicated to the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate action in this regard as per the provisions of the Bank and the Disciplinary Authority upon consideration of the said finding and by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after going through the evidence submitted by both the parties was prima facie satisfied that the petitioner has committed gross misconduct and accordingly passed the order as per Annexure-5 to the writ application i.e., order of compulsory retirement from the service of the Bank with superannuation benefit without disqualification from the future employment and stoppage of one increment for a period of six months. Both the punishment will run concurrently. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the Disciplinary Authority nor the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the said findings and orders do not warrant any interference. Further, it has been submitted that in the matter of domestic enquiry more particularly, on proportionality of punishment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases in relation to banking institution has specifically held that any employee found guilty of the charges in a departmental enquiry which constitutes grave misconduct, in such cases dismissal is the proper punishment. In a disciplinary matter the proper test is wednesbury principle. ;