IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Appellate Authority to consider the specific issue of the grant of extraordinary leave to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 63 of the Regulation.

JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

The writ petitioner is the Assistant Manager of Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Dhupguri Branch. A disciplinary proceeding was conducted on the basis of the following charges:-

“Charge No. 1:

Sri Sujan Roy, Assistant Manager, Dhupguri Branch remained on unauthorized absence from his duty for more than 1060 days disobeying the service conduct.

Charge No. 2:

Sri Sujan Roy, Assistant Manager, Dhupguri Branch has availed 5(five) loans from bank and 1(one) loan was availed by his wife Smt. Rajashree Roy from bank and debit balances are outstanding in the loan accounts which have turned to NPA for non-payment installments due”.

2. By an order dated 22nd November, 2014 the General Manager informed that he would act as the Disciplinary Authority as per Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Services (amendment) Regulation, 2013. Disciplinary proceeding was duly conducted against the petitioner and the enquiry officer found him guilty of both the counts and placed the record before the General Manager, the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer and passed an order of removal from service dated 17th April, 2015. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal but the said appeal was also turned down by order dated 31st August, 2015. By filing WP 16907 (W)/2006 the petitioner challenged the final order of his removal from service by the Appellate Authority dated 5th September, 2015.

3. By an order dated 3rd October, 2018 a Coordinate Bench quashed and set aside the order dated 31st August, 2015 and the consequential order dated 5th September, 2015 passed by the Appellate Authority. The Court remanded back the matter to the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 1/Bank to designate an appropriate Appellate Authority without Mr. P. Anup Kumar to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

4. The aforesaid order was passed because of the fact that the said P. Anup Kumar submitted the charge-sheet to the petitioner and again acted as Appellate Authority in the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition preferred an appeal which was registered as FMA 635/2019. In the said appeal, the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench was affirmed and the Appellate Authority was directed to release the admissible retiral dues of the writ petitioner/appellant pending disposal of the appeal.

5. Subsequently on 31st March, 2020 the Appellate Authority designated by the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 1/Bank dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and confirmed the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority without addressing the issues raised in the appeal. The Appellate Authority also did not consider that entire amount of dues towards loan was already liquidated by the petitioner even before the appeal was being adjudicated upon by the designated Appellate Authority.

6. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits before me that charge on count no. 1 i.e., unauthorized absence by the petitioner is vague, indefinite and does not tantamount to misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority did not know at the time of formulation of charge the period of alleged unauthorized absence by the petitioner. In the initial charge-sheet, it was stated by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner was absent for 1060 days; Subsequently by a corrigendum it was reduced to 1025 days; thereafter by another corrigendum the period of unauthorized absence was stated to be of 986 days and finally it appears that the petitioner was absent unauthorizedly for 580 days. Said absence was already treated by the higher Authority of the petitioner as leave without pay.

7. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the post of Field Supervisor as a probationer on 28th December, 1982. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of