The amendment of the Service Regulations, 2010, resulted in the General Manager becoming the competent authority in respect of Scale-II Officers, and the Chairman, who issued the charge sheet, could not act as the appellate authority due to a change in personnel.

JUDGMENT :

SUVRA GHOSH, J.

1. The case has a chequered history.

2. The applicant/petitioner, being a Scale-II Officer of the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) filed a writ petition being W.P. No 15456 (W) of 2016 assailing the penalty imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority vide order passed on 5th May, 2016, removing him from service and depriving him of his retiral dues.

3. Several notices/reminders were issued upon the applicant/petitioner directing him to show cause as to why disciplinary action would not be initiated against him for violation of service regulations and several irregularities detected in his conduct as an officer. Charge sheet was issued against the applicant/petitioner by the Bank on 8th September, 2011 and being dissatisfied by the reply of the applicant/petitioner to the charge sheet, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him upon appointing a Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding the applicant/petitioner guilty, which was forwarded to the applicant/petitioner for submission of his reply. The petitioner raised objection to the said inquiry report on the ground that it was forwarded to him by the General Manager in the capacity of the disciplinary authority. The applicant/petitioner superannuated on attaining the normal age of superannuation on 28th February, 2015 and though pension was paid to him on his retirement, other retiral dues were withheld.

4. According to the applicant/petitioner, the Chairman was the competent disciplinary authority as on 3rd May, 2013 and the General Manager was not empowered to Act as the disciplinary authority on the said date.

5. The applicant/petitioner filed a writ petition W.P. 21089 (W) of 2011 challenging issuance of charge sheet against him which was dismissed by a coordinate bench of this Court by an order dated 29th September, 2016. The applicant/petitioner was directed to pay cost assessed at Rs. 1,00,000/- which the Bank was directed to withhold from any amount that may be due to the applicant/petitioner on any account whatsoever. The said order was carried in appeal by the applicant/petitioner and by an order dated 28th April, 2016 passed in A.S.T. 19 of 2016, an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal but reduced the cost to Rs. 25,000/-.

6. The disciplinary authority, by an order dated 5th May, 2016, imposed penalty of removal from service and cost of Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be realized from the bank contribution towards the Provident Fund Account of the applicant/petitioner.

7. The applicant/petitioner contended that the service regulations, 2010 stood amended with effect from the date of its publication in the official Gazette on 20th November, 2013. Prior to such publication, the General Manager usurped the power of the disciplinary authority and proceeded against the applicant/petitioner. Since charge sheet was issued by the Chairman who was the disciplinary authority prior to the amendment of the regulations, he cannot act as an appellate authority after amendment, thereby depriving the applicant/petitioner of his right of appeal.

8. The writ petition was disposed of by a judgment passed on 13th May, 2020 without interfering with the order of the authority and upon granting opportunity to the applicant/petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal. The applicant/petitioner was debarred from agitating the issue of competence of the General Manager in imposing penalty, before the appellate forum. The judgment of the Learned Single Bench was carried in appeal before a Division Bench of this Court and by a judgment passed on 25th March, 2021 the Hon’ble Division Bench varied the judgment under appeal with certain observations. The operative portion of the judgment is set out:

“Impugned judgment is varied in appellant being entitled to give his response to the enquiry report dated 26th April, 2013, to the General Manager as his disciplinary au