- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing the penalty order vide ref. No. ZO:DHN:IR:13-14:175 dated 16.08.2013 passed by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner has been inflicted penalty of "Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" in terms of regulation 4(j) of Bank of India Office Employee (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976; (ii) Issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing the appellate order vide ref no. ZO:DHN:IR:297 dated 31.12.2013 passed by respondent No.3 by which the respondents have rejected the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the punishment order dated 16.08.2013; (iii) Issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing the order vide ref. no. RNK:RA:31 dated 12.05.2016 passed by respondent no.1 by which he has rejected the review petition of the petitioner preferred against the order of penalty and the appellate order.
(2.) Case of the petitioner, in short, is that the petitioner while working as Branch Manager, Barbindia Branch, was suddenly suspended vide order dated 21.11.2011 issued by respondent No.2 on the allegation that he has misused the official position by unauthorized debiting the accounts of K.I. Estate Branch and Barbindia Branch by crediting the amounts to various accounts of his relatives and his own account. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 01.06.2012 and charge-sheet was issued on 10.12.2012 mentioning to proceed against the petitioner under Regulation 6 of the Bank of India Office Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976. The petitioner denied the charge vide his letter dated 21.12.2012. Thereafter, vide letter dated 24.12.2012 departmental enquiry was initiated and Sri Deb Prasad Ray, Senior Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Vide letter dated 24.01.2013 a corrigendum was also issued with respect to the memorandum of charge. Further case of the petitioner is that after noticing so many typographical errors and clerical errors in issuing the article of charges, statement of allegations, list of documents and witnesses, which were not ratified even in the corrigendum, respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 19.02.2013 stopped further proceeding of the departmental enquiry till further instruction. Subsequently respondent No.3 issued a fresh memorandum dated 25.02.2013 for the memo of charge against the petitioner mentioning therein the article of charges, statement of allegations, list of documents and witnesses. Realizing that some mistake has occurred with respect to account number even in the fresh memorandum dated 25.02.2013, again a corrigendum dated 02.05.2013 was issued. Specific case of the petitioner is that immediately thereafter the departmental enquiry was concluded and Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 29.06.2013 and by letter dated 18.07.2013 petitioner was directed to submit his reply within five days, to which the petitioner replied vide his letter dated 26.07.2013, but without considering his reply, the respondents- authorities passed the order of major punishment of dismissal which remained sustained by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority. It is also stated that during the enquiry proceedings, an F.I.R. bearing Govindpur P.S. Case No.142/2013 dated 08.04.2013 was lodged by the respondents against the petitioner under Sections 406 , 409 , 420 IPC for the same set of allegations, in which Final Form has been submitted which has been accepted. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Bank of India Office Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 and hence, he has knocked the door of this Court.
(3.) Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned orders on the following grounds: (i) The charge cannot be altered or added once the written statement has been filed and accepted. (ii) For the self same charges, criminal case as well as departmental proceedings has been initiated. (iii) A man cannot be a judge of his own cause. (iv) Complete violation of principles of natural justice. (v) Procedural laches and violation of the rules particularly Rules 6(3) and 17) of the Bank of India Office Employee (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976. The learned counsel argues that all the allegations against the petitioner are false and the respondents-Bank has not suffered any financial loss due any act of the petitioner. The action of the Bank was mala fide in initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner. In the criminal proceedings, the petitioner did not find the charges against the petitioner proved and hence final form was submitted. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority did not frame different and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations which is contrary to the Regulations. As per the Regulations, particularly Clause 21 thereof, the enquiry is vitiated and amounts to procedural lapse. It was further argued that the petitioner was suspended by the Zonal Manager, Dhanbad and the appeal was heard by the same authority. The person who has suspended the petitioner and the petitioner who has passed the appellate order, are the same and one person. It is settled principle of law that a person cannot be a judge of his own cause. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivatava, learned counsel for the petitioner, further argued that the Investigating Officer submitted final form vide Final Form No.74/2014 dated 30.04.2014, whereas, the Investigating Officer found the case untrue and found the F.I.R. false and forwarded the same before the learned trial Court of Sri Daya Ram for accepting the final form. Further it has been argued that the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the offences. Learned counsel has also placed heavy reliance in the cases of S. Bhaskar Reddy and another v. Superintendent of Police and another reported in (2015) 2 SCC 365 and State Bank of Hyderabad and another v. P. Kata Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 657. ;