- (1.) Aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement dated 29.11.2001, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The appellate order dated 16.5.2002 and the revisional order dated 21.10.2002 have also been challenged by the petitioner in the present proceeding.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as a clerk. The charge memo dated 26.04.1999 containing various charges was served upon the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report dated 30th April, 2000 was submitted finding the charge no.-1 and charge no.-3 partially proved. A further enquiry was ordered and the second enquiry report dated 23.09.2000 was submitted finding the charge no.-3 also proved. Charges framed under the charge no.-1 was found proved/partially as has been found in the first enquiry report. Charge nos. 2 and 4 were not found proved. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 16.05.2002 and revision application preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed on 21.10.2002.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating as under: 6. "That it is incorrect to say that fresh enquiry has been ordered. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 27.7.2000 has ordered for further enquiry in the matter after recording the reasons in terms of regulation 7 of Bank of India Officer's Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976. The order dated 27.07.2000 by which further enquiry has been ordered has been duly acknowledged by the petitioner. In the further enquiry opportunity of defence was given to the petitioner which was availed by him. As per the regulation 7 of Bank of India Officer employees (discipline & Appeal) Regulation 1976, Disciplinary Authority is empowered to remit back the case to the Inquiring Authority for fresh or further enquiry. Since in the further enquiry opportunity of defence has been provided to the petitioner therefore there is no violation of Principles of natural justice. In the chargesheet issued to the petitioner for lapses /misconduct committed by him only has been covered. The Disciplinary Authority has acted independently without any influence from any quarter. Further all the authorities viz Disciplinary, Appellate and Review are independent and they have considered the case in their respective capacities separately after considering the appeal and review petition so filed by the petitioner objectively and thereafter the impugned orders have been passed as such there is nothing to be interfered into. 7. That is is stated and submitted that the penalty order, appellate and Review orders are fully legal, justified and sustainable. The order dated 27.7.2000 ordering further enquiry is wholly justified and valid and as per the prescribed rules/ regulation. The further enquiry has been ordered vide order dated 27.7.2000 which has been duly acknowledged by the petitioner and there is no violation of Principles of natural justice as claimed for. 8. That it is further stated and submitted that in terms of the Regulation 7 of Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976, that the Disciplinary Authority can refer the matter to the Inquiring Authority for further enquiry. In normal course the same IA will conduct the further enquiry as such there is no question for biasness and prejudicial in the matter of ordering for further enquiry as claimed for. 9. That the deponent states and submits that the Second enquiry is legal, proper, valid and within the competency/jurisdiction and in accordance with the Regulation of Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation 1976 and has been conducted after following due procedure and the rules of natural justices as such there is nothing to be interferred into. It is needless to say that the further enquiry (not fresh enquiry as claimed for) was conducted after due notice to the petitioner and adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner to defend his case as such he has not been prejudiced in any way. 10. That it is further stated and submitted that all the orders viz penalty, Appellate and Reviewing are quite speaking dealing elaborately the matter. Penalty imposed by the Disciplinary authority has been confirmed by the Appellate and the Reviewing Authority and all of them are in the opinion that the punishment is in proportion to the gravity of misconduct proved against the petitioner as such there is nothing to be looked into. The orders are legal, proper and valid is sustainable in law. 11. That is respect of paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17 no comment is required as they are matters on record. 12. That the statements made in paragraph 9 of the Writ petition are not correct rather misconceived as such are denied. The petitioner has never been substantially exhonerated from the charges and the statements that a very nominal formal and negligible charge was found to have been partially proved are not correct rather misconceived and is contrary to the record. The charges are serious and that have been proved in the enquiry proceeding on the basis of the evidence on record and the punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the charges.";