PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the captioned writ application, prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 22.06.2005 whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of reduction/down grading the pay scale by three stages and for quashing the charge -sheet dated 20.12.2003 issued by the Chairman -cum - disciplinary authority and quashing the order dated 07.09.2006 passed by the appellate authority/respondent no.3 whereby the order dated 16.06.2005/22.06.2005 passed by the disciplinary authority has been modified to the extent that the order of inflicting punishment of reduction/down grading the pay scale by three stages has been reduced to reduction /down grading pay scale by two stages and the period of suspension would remain as it is.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that while continuing on the post of Accountant at Garhwa Bazar Branch of Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide letter dated 21.09.2001 for violating the directions and the explanation was called for from the petitioner dated 06.10.2001. In pursuance to the said letter, the petitioner submitted his explanation before the General Manager. The explanation being found unsatisfactory, the petitioner was served with a charge -sheet vide letter dated 20.12.2003 pertaining to negligence/indiscipline and violating the directions/orders of the Branch Manager as per Rules 16, 17, and 19 of the P.K.G.B (Officers and Staffs) Service Regulation. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the inquiry officer and presenting officer was appointed. Before the inquiry officer, the petitioner submitted his defense statement denying the charges, the inquiry officer submitted a report and the copy of the inquiry report supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply on the findings of the inquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply on the inquiry report during course of inquiry the charge nos. 1 and 3 were proved and the charge no.2 was partially proved. On the basing of the inquiry report the disciplinary authority has arrived at a finding as rules 16, 17, 19 and 38 of P.K.G.B (Officers and Staff) service regulation 2001 and accordingly as per Rule 38 Sub -rule (i) (Kha) (2) of the said service regulation the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of down grading/reduction of three stages in his pay scale and the period of suspension has been treated as such vide Annexure -9 to the writ application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with by the impugned order of punishment, the petitioner submitted appeal before the Board of Directors. The appellate authority vide order dated 07.09.2006 modified the order of punishment of reduction/down grading his pay scale by three stages to two stages and further ordered that the period of suspension of the petitioner would remain as it is as evident from Annexure -12 to the writ application.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is illgeal, in view of the facts before infliction of punishment no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which has resulted in vitiating the entire proceeding. Learned senior counsel further submits that the charges framed against the petitioner were totally vague and no inference could be drawn with regard to the complicity of the petitioner and as such the initiation of departmental proceeding and the order of punishment by the disciplinary authority is not legally sustainable. It is further submitted that the respondents proceeded with a pre -determined mind to inflict punishment on the petitioner and the entire proceeding has been conducted in utter haste with a sole motive to inflict punishment on the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary as well as by the appellate authority is non - speaking and non -reasoned order, which ought to be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors as reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and in the case of G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society & Ors as reported in (2010) 2 SCC 497. Furthermore, the appellate authority while deciding the appeal against the petitioner with modification in the order of punishment have not considered the relevant materials while deciding the appeal. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions rendered in the case of Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors as reported in 1983 PLJR 92.;