DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. NIKUNJA BIHARI PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent was an officer in Scale I in the service of the central Bank of India. While he was working as the Branch Manager, Paradeep Branch, he was suspended pending enquiry on 21/11/1988. On 16/1/1989, ten charges were communicated to him. He denied all of them. An Inquiry Officer was appointed who reported, after holding a due enquiry, that Charges 1, 6, 8 and 9 were established fully while Charges 2,3,5,7 and 10 were established partially. Charge 4 was held not established. On the basis of the said report, the appropriate authority dismissed the respondent from service. The appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed whereupon he approached the orissa High court by way of a writ petition. The High court has allowed the writ petition holding that the charges held established against the respondent represent errors of judgment but not 'misconduct'. The High court opined that though the respondent was guilty of doing many acts beyond his authority, it was not established that it was done with any ulterior motive or for any extraneous consideration. Since the Inquiry Officer has not found that the Bank has actually incurred any loss on account of the said acts of the respondent, the High court held, the charge of misconduct is not established. Accordingly, thewrit petition was allowed, the order of punishment imposed upon the respondent was set aside and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The charges framed against the respondent are the following: