- (1.) BY the instant writ petition, which is a second round of litigation, the petitioner, who is Manager of the respondent -Bank, has assailed the impugned order dated 5th May, 2000 (Annex.7), whereby he was visited with penalty of withholding of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect from the year 1987 and forfeiture of one hundred and sixteen days' salary during suspension.
(2.) THE facts in brief, giving rise to this petition, are that, while working as Manager under the respondent -Bank, the petitioner was served a memorandum and charge -sheet dated 2nd June, 1987 attributing various misconducts. Pursuant to the memorandum and charge -sheet, reply was submitted by the petitioner and the same was not found to be satisfactory. In these circumstances, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary inquiry and after conducting the inquiry, the petitioner was indicted for the misconducts, which were attributed to him. The disciplinary authority thereafter, while concurring with the findings of the inquiry officer, passed the punishment order dated 17th July, 1987, whereby four annual grade increments with cumulative effect were withheld and his salary during suspension was forfeited. Being aggrieved from the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank i.e., the appellate authority and the appellate authority by its order dated 14th September, 1987 rejected the appeal. Assailing the order of disciplinary authority and its subsequent affirmation by the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.703/1990. The writ petition was finally decided by this Court on 20th July, 1999 and while setting aside the impugned orders, the matter was remanded back for deciding it afresh.
(3.) THE operative portion of the directions contained in order are reproduced as under : - Thus, in view of the above, the impugned orders of punishment are setaside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for proper inquiry. It is for the Appellate Authority to decide the case afresh and pass appropriate order. If any order is passed against the petitioner, the Appellate Authority is directed to pass speaking and reasoned order. Since the matter is an old one, the same may be decided expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner before respondent -Authority. There shall be no order as to costs. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the matter was re -examined by the appellate authority and denovo inquiry was ordered against the petitioner for the same charge -sheet. In the de -novo inquiry, the petitioner has participated and the Inquiry Officer submitted his detailed report on 1st April, 2000, wherein the Inquiry Officer has recorded its finding that most of the charges are found to be proved against the petitioner.;