S.N.Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard Learned Counsel For The Parties.
(2.) The Petitioner Has Filed This Writ Petition With A Prayer To Quash/ Set aside the order dated 11.12.2010, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as communicated to him vide Letter No. COR: HRD: MR: C, dated 18.12.2010, whereby and whereunder major penalty of reduction to two lower stages in time scale of pay, as on the date of superannuation i.e. 31.01.2010, has been imposed upon him in garb of provision enshrined in Regulation 4(f) of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1977. Petitioner has further prayed to quash part of the order dated 09.07.2011, passed by appellate authority whereby and whereunder the appellate authority has refused to set aside entire order of punishment as imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed to quash charge sheet issued to him as contained in letter no. HRDD: DAC: 15235, dated 23.01.2010 and enquiry report, as contained in Letter no. HRDD: DSE: 15235, dated 12.08.2010, whereby and whereunder it is said that the charges against the petitioner were proved to the extent discussed in the enquiry report.
(3.) The Facts Of The Case In Short As Has Been Delineated In The Writ petition is that petitioner was initially appointed as Agriculture Officer on 19.06.1978 and was promoted from one post to another. He was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager on 01.06.2008. While holding post of Deputy General Manager (FI) at Circle Office, Ranchi, a letter dated 22.09.2009 was served upon him advising him to give remarks on a tabular form received from the office of Inspector and Audit Department, Circle Office, Patna and in compliance thereof petitioner submitted his remarks on 01.10.2009. Thereafter, petitioner was served with charge sheet as contained in Letter No. HRDD: DSE: 15235, Dated 23.01.2010. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 25.01.2010 denying the allegations and prayed for his exoneration of the charges. Though the petitioner was to retire on 31.01.2010 but by letter dated 30.01.2010 he was intimated that the departmental proceeding would continued against him even after his retirement. After appointment of Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer, the witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited. MW2 - S.K. Sharma, who was holding the post of Senior Manager in the Circle Office and Functional Manager of Government Business Department at the relevant time as also Malvendra Singh, Chief Manager and Shailendra Kishore Sharma deposed that there was no shortage of cash at all in the currency chest. Petitioner also examined defence witness. In spite of representations made by the petitioner, the respondents did not provide relevant documents to him. Petitioner submitted his reply/ defence before the Enquiry Officer on 23.07.2010. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report vide Letter No. HRDD: DSE: 15235, dated 12.08.2010 holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, petitioner submitted his reply dated 23.08.2010 before the Disciplinary Authority praying therein for his exoneration of the charges leveled against him. Without considering 32 years of unblemished service career as well as deposition of witnesses and grounds mentioned by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 11.12.2010 imposing him major penalty by reduction of two lower stages in the time scale of pay as on the date of superannuation i.e. 31.01.2010. Against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Chairman & Managing Director of the Bank on 31.01.2011. After considering appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority modified the punishment imposed upon him to the extent of reduction of one lower stage in the time scale of pay as on the date of superannuation of the petitioner. Thus, the appeal was allowed to the extent that reduction to one lower stage in time scale of pay was set aside but reduction of one lower stage in the time scale of pay, as imposed by disciplinary authority, was affirmed by the appellate authority. The said order dated 09.07.2011 was communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No. COR:HRD: MR: C, dated 22.07.2011.;