Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order (Annex.9) dated 31.7.1995, whereby the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service.
(2.) THE petitioner was posted as a Manager in the respondent Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik Gramin Bank. A departmental inquiry came to be instituted against him in relation to allegations of large scale irregularities in sanctioning/disbursing of the loans/advances under various banks schemes. The allegations included the charge that the petitioner exceeded the sanctioning limits vested in him as a Manager and made payment directly to the borrowers as against the Bank's norms as per which, payment was required to be made to the supplier of the items/assets. He disbursed loans in the name of fictitious persons, violated the rules and procedure of the Bank in regard to financing, particularly in case of IRDP beneficiaries, and also sanctioned and disbursed loans to more than one person of one family etc. The petitioner was placed under suspension and was directed to be paid subsistence allowance @ 1/3 of the basic pay and dearness allowances. The petitioner filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1704/1987 assailing the action of the respondents in granting him meager subsistence allowance. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel on 7.12.1988. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority proceeded with the inquiry, wherein the petitioner fully participated and exhibited as many as 59 documents and examined two witnesses in defence. It is not disputed, that the petitioner was assisted by a defence nominee during the course of the inquiry. The disciplinary authority, upon conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, imposed upon the petitioner, penalty of dismissal from service by the impugned order (Annex.9) dated 31.7.1995. It is not in dispute that against an order in the nature of the one assailed directly in this writ petition, there is available a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Rules 31 and 32 of the Staff Service Regulations of Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik Gramin Bank, which are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: - "Right to appeal 31.(1) An officer or employee shall have a right of appeal against any order passed by an authority which injuriously affects his interest. (2) The appeal shall be preferred to the appellate authority mentioned in regulation 32 within 30 days of the date of service of the order appealed against. The appellate authority shall consider whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are justified and whether the penalty imposed is adequate and pass suitable orders as early as possible. Appellate Authority 32. An appeal in the case of an officer or employee shall be to the Board."
(3.) RATHER than availing the said statutory remedy, the petitioner slept over the matter for almost two years and then approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition, which was presented in the court on 16.9.1997 i.e. after more than two years of the impugned order being passed.;