- (1.) Counsel for the petitioner is challenging the resolution, dated 26th August, 2011 (at Annexure 15 to the memo of the petition), passed by the respondents, whereby the respondents have resolved to initiate departmental enquiry against the present petitioner. The petitioner is facing a charge of excess payment of approximately 11 lakhs made to a private party. Counsel for the petitioner is challenging this resolution at Annexure 15, which is a decision to hold departmental proceeding against the petitioner, mainly for the reason that the respondents have not appreciated the report of the enquiry officer, i.e. report dated 12th March, 2011 (Annexure 13 to the memo of the petition) and consequently, despite it being an admitted fact in the aforesaid report that due to some clerical error the aforesaid amount was paid to the private party, respondents have decided to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. This clerical error is evident from Annexure 8 to the Memo of the petition.
(2.) Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no ground to entertain this petition for the following facts and reasons. .(I) The petitioner is holding the post of Managing Director of Dumka Central Co-operative Bank Limited and during his tenure some excess payment of approximately Rs. 11 lakh has been made to a private party.. (II) In connection with this charge, preliminary enquiry was conducted by the respondents before chargesheet was given to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is harping upon this preliminary enquiry, which was privately conducted by the respondents. The report of the preliminary enquiry (Annexure 13 to the memo of the petition) may be in favour of the petitioner, but that does not mean that respondents can not hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner. (III) It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that it is an admitted fact, as per. Annexure 8 to the memo of the petition, that excess payment is the result of some clerical error. It appears that petitioner is looking at Annexure 8 from his own angle as this fact, which is said to have been admitted by the respondents, is not admitted at all. On the contrary, it is highly disputed. (IV) Looking to the nature of allegation made by the petitioner and order dated 26th August, 2011 at Annexure 15 to memo of the petition, it prima-facie appears that the petitioner is involved in a misconduct for excess payment of Rs. 11,34,967/- and because of petitioner's negligence, this payment was made to a private party for which the respondents have decided to initiate a departmental enquiry. No illegality has been committed by the respondents in arriving at a conclusion by order dated 26th August, 2011 (Annexure 15) to hold enquiry against the petitioner. On contrary, looking to the seriousness of the allegations and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, decision to hold an enquiry is just, proper, equitable and in the interest of public at large. (V) It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that in report dated 12th March, 2011, at annexure 13 to the memo of the petition, the petitioner has been exonerated from the charge against him. Looking to the report at Annexure 13, it appears to be a preliminary enquiry and submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges is a misconception on the part of the petitioner. Prima-facie, it appears that there is a feeling of brotherhood at the preliminary enquiry stage and this type of brotherhood feeling at the stage of preliminary enquiry may not be accepted by the high ranking officers and therefore, decision has been taken to hold departmental proceeding.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition.;