IMPORTANT POINT
The Assistant General Manager is a competent Disciplinary Authority under the Dena Bank Regulations, and the dismissal was justified based on the inquiry findings.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appeal is at the behest of the employer and is directed against the judgment and order dated November 24, 2023 passed in WPA 1809 of 2013. By the impugned judgment and order learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority acted without jurisdiction in passing the order of termination from services in respect of the private respondent.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated as against the private respondent on the basis of the prima facie satisfaction that an inquiry into the misdeeds of the private respondent were required to be undertaken. He submits that, the service conditions of the private respondent is governed by the provisions of Dena Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (Regulations of 1976). He submits that, the initial satisfaction of the Authority to initiate an inquiry as against the private respondent was admittedly done by an Authority prescribed by the Regulations of 1976. An inquiry was held whereupon, the charges levelled as against the private respondent were found to be proved. The Inquiry Report was accepted by a writing dated April 12, 2010 issued by the Assistant General Manager. Assistant General Manager while accepting the Inquiry Report proceeded to pass an order of dismissal from services with immediate effect so far as the private respondent is concerned. He refers to Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 1976 and submits that, the Disciplinary Authority or any authority higher than it, may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any officer employee. He refers to the Regulation 4 of the Regulations of 1976. Regulation 4 deals with major penalty and dismissal from services as one of the major penalties prescribed. He refers to Regulations 7 and submits that such regulation prescribes action to be taken on the Inquiry Report. He contends that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, Regulation 7 was complied with.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that since an Authority who was higher than the authority prescribed under Regulation 5 passed the order of dismissal from service, the same was bad in law. He submits that, learned single Judge misconstrued and miscomplied Regulation 5, particularly sub-regulation (3) thereof. He submits that sub-regulation (3) allows the Disciplinary Authority or any Authority higher than it to impose penalty as specified in Regulation 4 of the Regulations of 1976. He submits that, the Disciplinary Authority, is defined in Regulations 3(g) of the Regulations of 1976. He refers to the schedule of the Regulations of 1976 and submits that, since, the private respondent was being proceeded against in the capacity of a scale II officer, the Disciplinary Authority prescribed in the Schedule was the Regional Manager in scale IV. Moreover, such schedule prescribes that, if the Region is headed by Assistant General Manager/Deputy General Manager, then Chief Manager posted at Regional Office or one of the Chief Managers in the Region nominated by General Manager (Personnel) would be the Disciplinary Authority.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that, the decision to initiate an inquiry against the private respondent, who was a scale–II officer in rank was taken at the level of General Manager. Inquiry was held at the level of the General Manager and the decision to impose the punishment was taken at the level of the Assistant General Manager. According to him, Assistant General Manager is one of the prescribed Disciplinary Authorities under the Regulations of 1976 for a Scale II officer.

5. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent submits that, the charges as against the private respond