Misconduct requires a wilful transgression of a definite rule of action, and negligence or carelessness may also be misconduct but must be wilful in character.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Bank.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application, challenges the order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Chief Vigilance Officer, Multi State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna, whereby he has been dismissed from service on the charge of certain misconduct alleged against him. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the Chairman of the Bank-cum- Appellate Authority by which his appeal against the said order of punishment has been rejected.

3. The petitioner was at the relevant point of time posted as Branch Manager, Maharajganj Branch of Bank. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him with the issuance of a chargesheet vide memo No. 306 dated 11.11.2011. The chargesheet contained three charges to the following effect:-

I. The petitioner did not take any interest in the work of recovery of loan during the financial year 2010-11.

II. The recovery against loan during the month of June was zero as against the fixed target of Rs. 0.50 thousand.

III. He did not submit any explanation to the show-cause issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank for loan recovery being made during the period of July 2010 to May 2011.

4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge before the Enquiry Officer, explaining the circumstance in which the loan recovery could not be made during the period in question. In his written statement of defence to the chargesheet, he took a plea that he was the only employee posted in the Branch. There was neither any Assistant nor a Peon. He was the person who would open the Bank and he could leave the Branch only after closing it. He also took a plea that power of Certificate Officer was not vested in any officer during the period in question and it was, therefore, difficult for him to recover loan during the said period. As regards non-submission of his explanation to the show-cause issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer, he took a plea that he never received such letter No. 1744 dated 15.06.2011 as mentioned in the chargesheet.

5. The Enquiry Officer considering the petitioner’s written statement of defence and other materials recorded his findings. He found the plea of the petitioner that he was the only person posted in the Branch as correct and bonafide. He also accepted the petitioner’s contention that power of Certificate Officer was not vested in any Bank Officer in the concerned district. He however, observed that the petitioner should have been more careful and should have given special attention to the work of loan recovery. As regards absence of power of a Certificate Officer, he observed that the petitioner should have taken help from the Area Manager in this regard and he finally concluded that the petitioner did not make as much efforts as he should have made for recovery of loan.

6. Agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 16.04.2013 dismissing the petitioner from service. The said order also stipulates that petitioner would not be entitled for any salary for anything over and above the subsistence allowance for the period during which he was under suspension.

7. The Appellate Authority modified the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment of removal from service has been converted into “placing the petitioner in the lowest scale of basic pay”. The order of the Appellate Authority further contemplates that the petitioner will not be entitled for any salary from the date of the order of dismissal from service till the date of joining pursuant to the order of the Appellate Authority.

8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-Bank justifying the action taken.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the charges framed against him as a matter of fact do not constitute a misconduct. H