SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.3.2014, as contained in letter no.RO/JR/VIGILANCE/27/306 issued under the signature of Deputy General Manager -cum -Disciplinary Authority, whereby and where under decision has been taken to conduct de novo (fresh) enquiry against the petitioner.
(2.) THE statement has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent -Bank and is serving as Head Cashier in the Bank of Baroda. The petitioner is posted in Burma Mines Branch, Jamshedpur. A disciplinary action was contemplated against him. As a result he was put under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding vide letter dated 5.7.2013. The explanation was sought for from the petitioner vide letter dated 22.7.2013 in respect of alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner for commission of irregularities.
(3.) THE petitioner has submitted his explanation on 5.8.2013 and informed the Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda that because of heavy work load these lapses have occurred. The petitioner has reiterated the same thing in the reply dated 14.8.2013. The respondent -bank, being not satisfied with the said explanation, issued charge sheet dated 24.10.2013 in terms of Clause -7 of the Memorandum of Settlement. An Inquiry Officer has been appointed, inquiry has been initiated, Inquiry Officer has given notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, after putting his appearance before the Inquiry Officer, has accepted his guilt and has stated that because of the heavy work load, the lapses have been committed by him. However, he has submitted that there was no loss caused to the bank.;