Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to statutory provisions; if Service Regulations are not notified under Section 13B of the Act, Model Standing Orders apply and render any contrary action void.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. Petitioner has filed the present Petition challenging Part-I Award dated 22 January 2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-2, Mumbai (CGIT) holding that the enquiry conducted against the Petitioner is fair and proper and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse.

3. Maharashtra Gramin Bank is a Regional Rural Bank (RRB) established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Government of India vide Notification dated 25 March 2008 amalgamated the two RRBs i.e. Aurangabad Jalna Gramin Bank & Thane Gramin Bank into a single RRB named Maharashtra Godavari Gramin Bank. Maharashtra Gramin Bank came into existence on 20 July 2009 after amalgamation of erstwhile Maharashtra Godavari Gramin Bank and Marathawada Gramin Bank. Respondent-Bank is sponsored by the Bank of Maharashtra. The share capital of the Bank is contributed by Government of India, Government of Maharashtra and Bank of Maharashtra.

4. Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Respondent-Bank on 27 April 1982. He was elected as working President of the Maharashtra Regional Rural Bank Employees Union and was also elected as a Member of Maharashtra Regional Rural Bank Officers Union. On 12 August 2010, Petitioner was placed under suspension under Regulation No.45 of the Maharashtra Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2009 (Service Regulations, 2009). On 30 October 2010, Petitioner was issued chargesheet alleging violation of Regulation Nos.17, 19, 21 and 38 of the Service Regulations, 2009. The charges levelled against Petitioner related to collection of donations for advertisements for Unions publications, pressuring the employees of the Bank to collect advertisements/ donations on the large scale, collection of donations from clients/ borrowers of the Bank. It was further alleged that Petitioner delivered his own cash of Rs.4,00,000/- for opening five accounts in the names of his family members by showing it as if it was officials/authorized outward cash remittance from Shiradhon Branch to Osmanabad Branch. It was further alleged that on 26 June 2009, Petitioner delivered cash of Rs.6,00,000/- for deposit in the account of his wife showing it to be officials/authorized outward cash remittance from one Branch to another. It was further alleged that Petitioner delivered personal cash amount of Rs. 30,37,400/- once again showing it as officials /authorized outward cash remittance. It is further alleged that during the period from 2005 to 2010 Petitioner had deposited cash aggregating Rs.55,00,000/- in his own account and the accounts of his family members. It was further alleged that Petitioner actively promoted LIC business in the names of his family members by misusing his position as office bearer of the Union. Petitioner submitted his response to the charge-sheet on 15 November 2010. The Enquiry Officer cond