IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of an Inquiry Officer in the same scale does not necessarily vitiate the inquiry if no prejudice or injustice is demonstrated by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank and it’s authorities.

2. Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking the following reliefs :

(a) For issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order of major penalty of “Compulsory Retirement” passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 3 & 5) on 16-Dec-2015 as per Letter Having ref no: MBGB/HO/DAC/V-424/5117/15. Annexure-VI.

(b) For issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the Respondent No. (2) & (3) to reinstate the petitioner as Officer Scale-II and to restore the position of the petitioner as on the date of the petitioner from the date of suspension.

(c) For issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the Respondent No. (2) & (3) to give all the benefits to the petitioner from the date of suspension along with payment of full back wages with interest @ 18% covering deductions already affected.

(d) To grant any other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

Brief Facts of the case

3. The petitioner joined his service in the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank as an officer in the year 1983. During the period 01.07.2013 to 31.12.2014, he was promoted to Scale-II officer and was posted as Branch Manager at the Branch Office, Aungari in the district of Nalanda.

4. It is alleged that during his posting as Branch Manager at Aungari Branch, on 14th December 2013 he issued two Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDR) each of Rs.50,000/- in the name of one Narain Prasad and his wife Sundari Devi for twelve months. When the fixed deposit holders visited the Branch office on 02.01.2015 and sought encashment of the maturity amount of the two FDRs, the payments were not made and that led to the present proceeding against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court the article of charges contained in Annexure ‘VII’ to the amended writ application. The charges levelled against the petitioner are being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference :

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on receipt of the article of charges when the petitioner requested the disciplinary authority vide his letter dated 24.04.2015 to make him available the copy of the complaint said to have been submitted by the said Sri Narain Prasad and his wife Sundari Devi, the copy of the complaint was not made available to him. It is one of the submissions that the article of charges were served upon him without providing a copy of the complaint which form the basis of the charges.

7. Learned counsel submits that the disciplinary authority while instituting the disciplinary proceeding made one Sri Kaushal Kumar Dwivedi, Manager, H.O. Patna as Inquiry Officer. Sri Chandra Bhushan Kumar Sharma, B.M., B.O, Jaitipur (Nalanda) was appointed as Presenting Officer.

8. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer was in the same Scale-II category, in terms of Regulation 41 of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “Service Regulation”) the Inquiry Officer should have been an officer placed in the higher scale. Learned counsel submits that the entire inquiry will be vitiated because of non-observance of the Regulation 41 of the Service Regulation.

9. It is further contended that in course of inquiry, the written complaint of Sri Narain Prasad and his wife were not brought on the record. Instead, the signed complaint which was collected in course of preliminary inquiry was brought as management exhibit No. 9. It is pointed out that as regards the signed complaint of the said Sri Narain Prasad submitted during the preliminary inquiry when question was put to the author of the preliminary inquiry report as to who had written the statement of Sri Narain Prasad in course of preliminary inquiry, the author of the preliminary inquiry report said that it was the son of the complainant Sri Narain Prasad who h