RAM NAGINA CHOUDHARY Vs. VAISHALI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Assistant Manager in the respondent-Bank At the relevant time he was posted at Suhai Branch of Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank For his misconduct a proceeding was initiated and a copy of charge, Annexure-1 was furnished on him The charges levelled against him are as follows 1. He installed a personal telephone at Suhai Branch about more than two years ago without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority in writing This telephone was frequently used by him for his Union Activities in contacting the members and sabotaging the smooth functioning of the Management He kept himself fully engaged for Union Activities through this Phone during working hours of the Bank and did not put his attention in recovery of the loans at Suhai Branch at all Sri Choudhary recovered only Rs 54 thousand in Dummy Ledgers against the target of Rs 280 thousand for the year 2000-2001 2. He is in the habit of misbehaving with the senior officers during office hours On February 20, 1999 Sri Choudhary used unparliamentary language while talking to Sri J.C. Choudhary, General Manager of the Bank over telephone during office hours at Head Office He was issued the charge-sheet on October 11, 1999 for his such act of misconduct 3. On April 8, 2002 Sri Choudhary used his personal telephone of Suhai Branch and abused Sri R.N. Paswan, Area Manager, Hajipur m very dirty and derogatory languages which is appended below

(2.) The petitioner filed show cause m his defence, after enquiry, report was submitted to the disciplinary authority, Annexure-2/1 The Enquiry Officer held that the charge No 1 has been proved and charge Nos 2 and 3 have not been proved The disciplinary authority differed with the enquiry report with respect to charge No 3 giving reasons of difference A notice along with reason of difference and proposed punishment was served to the petitioner asking him to file second show cause The petitioner filed second show cause and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed order of punishment, Annexure-4 The petitioner was reprimanded with respect to charge No 1 and with respect to charge No 3 he was degraded to one lower stage in his incremental scale with cumulative effect permanently The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order The appeal was dismissed vide order Annexure-6/1

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which stand has been taken that one of the charges was found established by the Enquiry Officer and with respect to charge No 3 reason of difference was assigned by the disciplinary authority and the notice was served mentioning the reason requiring the petitioner to file second show cause which he filed and then the order of punishment Annexure-4 was passed The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order Annexure-4 was passed The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order Annexure-4 has been dismissed vide Annexure-6/1 In nut shell in the counter-affidavit the orders Annexures-4 and 6/1 have been supported