PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, prayer has been made for quashing the impugned order dated 15.09.2012, passed by the Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-20 as well as the penalty order dated 30.03.2012, issued by the Respondent No. 2 in the capacity of the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure-18 pertaining to imposition of major penalty of removal from services.
(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that after due process of selection vide letter dated 23.12.1980, the petitioner was appointed on the post of the Officer by the Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (now called as Jharkhand Gramin Bank). After joining the said post, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties diligently and sincerely. Thereafter, the petitioner has been promoted to the next higher post. While continuing, as such, in the promotional post, vide letter dated 06.02.1996, on the basis of anonymous complaint, the respondent no. 2 asked the petitioner to produce the original Caste Certificate, issued by the competent authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the letter. Accordingly, on 27.02.1996, the petitioner while denying the said complaint, sent the letter enclosing the original caste certificate and the said application was forwarded to the Respondent No. 2. In the year 2000, the petitioner was asked to appear in the Interview scheduled for promotion and the petitioner has been communicated vide letter dated 05.09.2001 by the respondent No. 2 regarding the decision of the competent authority for promotion of the petitioner from Cadre Scale-I to Scale II. Thereafter, no communication was made to the petitioner for more than five years but suddenly vide letter dated 22.09.2007, the respondent no. 3 asked the petitioner to clarify as to why departmental proceeding shall not be initiated against him for submission of a 'Farzi' caste certificate, inter alia, on the ground that information was given by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide his letter dated 06.02.2001 that the petitioner belongs to 'Manjhi' community, which does not fall within the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward class, as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In response to the show cause notice dated 22.09.2007, the petitioner asked for a copy of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 06.02.2001 along with the enquiry report and other relevant documents. Vide letter dated 07.11.2007, the respondent No. 3 provided copy of the caste certificate to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 15.12.2007, the petitioner submitted show cause before the Respondent No. 3, contending, therein, that the caste certificate was issued by the competent authority and the same is a genuine and valid document and the observation of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti with regard to caste 'Manjhi community' is general in nature and not in particular for the petitioner. Further, it was explained that the 'Manjhi' is a title and not a caste. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent No. 2 to recall the show-cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner requested respondent No. 2 to provide him the copy of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner as well as copy of the enquiry reports as contained therein and in reply thereto, the respondent No. 2 declined to provide copy of such documents with direction to the petitioner to file his explanation within 7 days, as evident from Annexure-12 to the writ petition and also vide letter dated 11.06.2009, the respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for submitting a false certificate, as evident from Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The petitioner preferred a writ application for quashing the show cause notice dated 11.06.2009 vide W.P. (S) No. 4618 of 2009 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 06.09.2010 directing the respondents to complete the inquiry within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in accordance with law, as per Annexure-16 to the writ petition and thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 25.09.2010, holding, inter alia, therein, that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved conclusively as per Annexure-17 to the writ petition. While disagreeing with the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and in absence of new material either oral material as well as documentary evidence, the respondent No. 2 held the findings of the Enquiry Officer to be incorrect. Vide letter dated dated 27.10.2010, the respondent No. 2 communicated his substituted enquiry finding without holding any further inquiry and on 04.11.2010, the petitioner submitted his objection against the said enquiry finding and vide the impugned order dated 30.03.2012, the respondent no. 2 imposed a major penalty of removal from services against the petitioner as evident from Annexure-18 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the major penalty, on 30.04.2012, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 1 and the appellate authority has passed the impugned appellate order dated 15.09.2012. vide Annexure-20 to the writ petition confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority dated 30.03.2012 and 15.09.2012, passed by the Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-18 and 20 to the writ petition, the petitioner left with no other alternative, has knocked the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are vitiated on the ground of belated charge sheet, issued after a lapse of 25 years from the date of joining the post of Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner about the false certificate is based upon presumption and assumption and in absence of any declaration of caste certificate to be false and forged one by the competent court of law or by the competent authority, the respondents are justified in presuming the same to be false for the purpose of issuance of charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no. 2 in the capacity of the disciplinary authority is empowered to substitute the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and to issue punishment order without holding any further inquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of penalty suffers from the vices of non-consideration of the material available on record and is against the principles of natural justice and the same are violative of Articles 14 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 2, being the disciplinary authority ought have passed the appellate order, therefore, the appellate order is vitiated in law. On the maxim, "no man can be judge of his own cause".;