PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner inter-alia prayed for quashing the departmental order dated 19.06.2007 (Annexure-16) passed by the disciplinary authority pertaining to dismissal from services and the order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure-17) passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of disciplinary authority and the petitioner further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post held by him.
(2.) The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner while continuing as scale 1 officer on the bank, an explanation was called for on 14.12.2004 regarding irregularities in disbursement of loan to 65 borrowers at Kanke Branch vide Annexure-1 to the writ application. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.12.2004. Thereafter, a preliminary investigation with the matter was carried out and report was submitted to the respondent no.3 vide Annexure-3 to the writ application. On 24.02.2006 and 08.05.2006, a charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and the departmental inquiry was initiated. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid charges thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 10.05.2006. On 02.06.2006 the petitioner was intimated by the respondent authorities for institution of departmental enquiry for the charges levelled against him. The petitioner on 19.06.2006 sought permission of the respondent no.3 for engaging a lawyer to defend his case as he got no knowledge of departmental inquiry proceedings, the said request was not acceded to. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his request, the petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No.3563 of 2006 and the said writ petition as been dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2006 by this Court. On 14.11.2006 the petitioner submitted his representation before the respondent no.3 stating therein that the CBI already seized some important documents from him as such he was not in a position to produce the same before the inquiry officer. The said representation was followed other reminder again on 05.12.2006. Again on 11.12.2006 the petitioner informed about the illness of being admitted to the hospital. On 21.05.2007 the respondent no.3 issued a letter stating therein that the petitioner could not be present at departmental enquiry on 21.12.2006, so the departmental proceeding is to be concluded ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply to the letter dated 21.05.2007 to the respondent no.3 on 09.06.2007. Finally, on 19.06.2007 the respondent no.3 passed the order dismissing the petitioner from services. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the disciplinary authority, petitioner filed appeal before the respondent no.2 which also been rejected thereby affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner, left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the impugned order of dismissal being affirmed by the Appellate Authority been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice that too ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officer and Employees) Service Regulation, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders of punishment of dismissal suffered from biasness of the chairman as the petitioner instituted a criminal case against him. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned orders are illegal as the right of appeal been given a go by because the order passed by the Chairman-cum-disciplinary authority been heard by the Director presided over by the Chairman himself as both the orders have passed by the same authority, therefore, the orders impugned are perverse and have been passed without application of mind being violative of Article 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India.;