Similar treatment of delinquent officers and the need for a fresh decision by the employer in cases of unequal penalties for similar charges.

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. The writ petition filed by the Appellant challenging the penalty of removal from service having been rejected by the learned Single Judge by order dated 8.2.2006 the present appeal has been filed.

2. The facts that will be required to be recited for the purpose of the present adjudication may now be briefly noticed.

At the relevant point of time the Appellant-writ Petitioner was holding the post of Branch Manager, Bharalumukh Branch of the United Bank of India. On 16.2.1996 he was placed under suspension. Simultaneously a charge-sheet containing four charges was served on the Appellant. The Appellant submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge memo on 15.7.1996 denying the allegations levelled against him. The reply of the Appellant not having been found to be satisfactory an enquiry was ordered into the charges levelled. The Appellant participated in the said enquiry which ended in the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 31.12.1997 holding all the charges levelled against the Appellant to have been proved. On 9.1.1998 the Appellant was served with a copy of the enquiry report to which he submitted his reply. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 12.10.1999 was passed imposing the penalty of removal from service. The Appellant filed a departmental appeal on 6.12.1999 which however remained unanswered in spite of repeated requests and reminders of the Appellant. At this stage, the Appellant approached this Court by instituting the writ proceeding registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 6350 of 2001,

3. In the aforesaid proceeding the Appellant had assailed the penalty imposed on him by contending, inter alia, that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and the findings reached against him in the said enquiry are not tenable and therefore the punishment imposed is unsustainable. Specifically, the Appellant had contended that one Sri Kalyan Chakraborty who held charge of the Bharalumukh Branch of the Bank immediately before the Appellant also faced a departmental enquiry in respect of 18 allegations, in all, some of which overlapped with the allegations levelled against the Appellant. The Appellant further contend that the allegations levelled against the aforesaid Kalyan Chakraborty were more serious and the amounts involved were much higher than in the case of the petitioner. Though the charges levelled against the aforesaid Kalyan Chakraborty were found to be established the penalty of reduction of basic pay including stagnation of increment and FPA was imposed on Kalyan Chakraborty whereas the punishment of removal has been imposed on the petitioner.

4. It will be appropriate, at this stage, to notice the charges levelled against the Appellant along with the explanation submitted by the Appellant in respect of the same.

Charge No. 1

On 10.10.1995, you had given effect to a cheque for Rs. 7,00,115/- drawn on State Bank of India, Guwahati Branch, by crediting the said amount to S.B. A/C No. 4439 of Shri Raj Kumar Das, who is also holder of one CD. A/C No. 756 with your Branch after debiting Clearing Adjustment A/C and by signing the relative vouchers singly. But the said Cheque for Rs. 7,00,115/- was not sent for collection through clearing on any date before 12.12.1995 though the effect of the said Cheque was allowed to be withdrawn by the Account holder on 10.10.1995. The said Cheque, was, however, sent for collection through clearing on 12.12.1995 which was again returned and ultimately it was relodged and realised on 15.12.1995. Thus, with an ulterior motive, you had extended undue favour to the Account holder of S.B. A/C No. 4439 and in gross violation of Bank's rules and procedure, you allowed him to enjoy the Bank's funds thereby jeopardising the interest of the Bank and for your such unauthorised act, the Bank remained out of fund for more than 2 months for the said amount.

Explanation offered by the Petitioner in respect of charge No. 1

The said Cheque was left lying in the dra