The Chairman of the Bank, being the superior authority of the General Manager, can assume the power of the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings, provided the appellant does not lose the right of appeal.

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.

The appellant/petitioner herein was a Clerk-cum-Cashier of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The said petitioner while discharging his duties as Clerk-cum-Cashier was placed under suspension by the Chairman of the said Bank. The Chairman of the said Bank assumed the power of the disciplinary authority and issued chargesheet to the said appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner categorically denied all the charges levelled against him.

The enquiry officer after holding the enquiry submitted report and a copy of the said enquiry report was thereafter forwarded to the appellant/petitioner by the Chairman who claimed himself as the disciplinary authority. The appellant/petitioner was also granted opportunity to submit reply on the findings of the enquiry officer.

The appellant/petitioner submitted written submissions on the findings of the enquiry officer. In the said written submission, appellant/petitioner raised several objections in respect of findings of the enquiry officer and requested the disciplinary authority to exonerate the said appellant from all the charges as mentioned in the charge sheet. The Chairman of the Bank thereafter claiming himself as the disciplinary authority proposed the punishment of removal from service of the appellant/petitioner and before taking final decision with regard to the aforesaid punishment an opportunity of personal hearing was also granted to the appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner was also informed that instead of appearing in person written representation can also be submitted.

The appellant/petitioner appeared before the Chairman and claimed himself innocent. The appellant categorically submitted before the Chairman that he has been victimized at the instance of other employees of the Bank. The Chairman of the Bank again claiming himself as the disciplinary authority issued the final order of punishment removing the said appellant/petitioner from service.

Challenging the aforesaid punishment order, appellant herein filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order under appeal. Assailing the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, appellant/petitioner herein preferred the instant appeal and also filed stay application in connection with the said appeal.

The appellant/petitioner herein challenged the validity and/or legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the said appellant on the ground that the Chairman of the Bank could not assume the power of the disciplinary authority in respect of the appellant herein as per the Service Regulations.

Referring to the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the Chairman of the Bank is not the disciplinary authority of the appellant herein and therefore, the said Chairman had no right to initiate disciplinary proceedings in respect of the appellant herein assuming the power of the disciplinary authority.

Mr. Saha Roy further submitted that the Chairman of the Bank is the appellate authority and therefore the said Chairman could not initiate the disciplinary proceedings assuming the power of the disciplinary authority. Mr. Saha Roy also submitted that the power of the disciplinary authority should be exercised by the authority prescribed under the statute and not even by the higher authority.

According to Mr. Saha Roy, General Manager of the Bank is the disciplinary authority of the appellant herein and the Chairman is the appellate authority. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the said appellant lost the appellate forum since the appellate authority in the present case acted as the disciplinary authority.

Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate of the appellant submitted that in terms of the Service Regulations, General Manager being the competent authority alone could issue chargesheet against t