An unreasoned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority can be cured by the Appellate Authority assigning sufficient reasons for affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority, and the employee concerned cannot claim prejudice if he had the opportunity to submit a representation before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority passed a reasoned order while disposing of the said representation.

Chattopadhyay, J.

1. THE appellant herein filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge challenging the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, final order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the subsequent order passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the said final order of the Disciplinary Authority.

2. THE appellant was appointed as a messenger in the subordinate cadre of the respondent-bank in the year 1979. The said appellant after obtaining bachelor degree in Arts from the University of Calcutta was promoted to the post of Assistant (Accounts) and thereafter was transferred to Pottery Road Area Branch in December, 1988. Subsequently, the appellant was transferred to Fort William Branch pursuant to his request.

The appellant while working in the Fort William Branch received a letter from the Branch Manager, Pottery Road Area Branch of the respondent-bank on 22nd January, 2002 wherein certain allegations were made against the said appellant. The appellant was asked to submit his explanation in relation to those allegations within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid letter. The appellant submitted his reply denying all the allegations made against him. The Disciplinary Authority was, however, not satisfied with the explanation of the appellant and placed him under suspension on 23rd May, 2002. Subsequently, the said Disciplinary Authority issued charge-sheet to the appellant. The appellant submitted his reply to the said charge- sheet, denying the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, decided to hold a departmental enquiry and accordingly, the appellant was informed about the appointment of the enquiry officer.

3. ON or about 30th December, 2002 the enquiry officer initiated the enquiry proceedings and ultimately submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. ON receiving the enquiry report and considering the findings of the enquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant herein with a forwarding letter dated March 8, 2004. The appellant was advised to submit a representation on the findings of the enquiry officer, as mentioned in the enquiry report. The appellant submitted his representation to the Disciplinary Authority on the findings of the enquiry officer.

4. THE Disciplinary Authority thereafter upon considering the enquiry report of the enquiry officer, representation of the appellant in connection with the said enquiry report and all other relevant documents in relation to the enquiry proceedings, proposed the punishment of removal of the appellant from service with superannuation benefits. The Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-bank, by a letter dated 11th May, 2004, asked the appellant to submit his representation in relation to the aforesaid proposed punishment, within ten days from the receipt of the said letter and the appellant was also offered an opportunity of personal hearing before the Disciplinary Authority on 24th May, 2004. The appellant however, neither submitted any written representation as advised by the Disciplinary Authority nor appeared for personal hearing on 24th May, 2004 as directed by the said Disciplinary Authority. The appellant however, met the Disciplinary Authority of the bank on 26th May, 2004, and on his request the said Disciplinary Authority granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the said appellant on that very day. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter by a reasoned order dated 27th May, 2004 intimated the appellant about the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits and without disqualification from future employment in terms of Para 6(b) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002, for proved acts of misconduct. It was further ordered that the period of suspension would be treated as such. The said final order dated 27th May, 2004 was received by the appellant on 31st May,