Point of Law: Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence, interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law, go into the adequacy of the evidence.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4564/2016, the appellant/original petitioner has preferred this intra-Court appeal.

2. The following facts emerge from the records of the appeal:

The appellant/original petitioner was working as an Assistant Manager in Assam Gramin Vikash Bank at its Dhemaji Branch. As per record, the appellant/writ petitioner was working in the said Bank since 1984 and when he was working as an Assistant Manager, Scale-I at the said Branch, by an order dated 14.09.2012, the appellant/original petitioner was put under suspension pending enquiry for certain acts of gross misconduct alleged to have been committed by him at Dhemaji Branch. A show cause notice was served upon the appellant on 28.03.2013 and eleven charges were levelled against him. It was specifically alleged that the appellant committed alleged irregularity in dealing with Central Sector Scheme of National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) under ‘Pig Development’ Scheme. It was also alleged that such irregularities were particularly noticed in recommending loan application of beneficiaries to the General Manager (Credit) for sanctioning loan. The appellant submitted his reply to the said show cause notice by denying all the charges vide reply dated 27.04.2013. The respondent authorities thereafter framed charge on 09.05.2014 and written statement was submitted by the appellant on 26.05.2014. Upon considering such written statement, as the same was not found to be satisfactory, departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant and an enquiry officer and a presenting officer came to be appointed vide order dated 16.06.2014. As a matter of chronology, as the presenting officer initially appointed expressed his inability to conduct the enquiry, another person named Ananta Hazarika, Manager of the respondent Bank at Regional Office, Lakhimpur was appointed as the presenting officer vide order dated 13.08.2014. The departmental enquiry was conducted on 12.09.2014, 26.09.2014, 16.10.2014, 17.10.2014, 18.10.2014 and concluded on 27.10.2014, which culminated into the enquiry report dated 30.11.2014. The enquiry report was served upon the appellant/original petitioner after which the appellant/original petitioner filed his reply and after considering the same, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the appellant on 30.05.2015. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which, however, came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2016. The order of compulsory retirement was challenged before this Court by way of filing a writ petition which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge and being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

3. We have heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel assisted by Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents. The original records of enquiry were produced by the learned counsel for the respondents in a sealed cover.

4. Referring to the impugned judgment and order, Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant contended that out of the list of seven witnesses, only one witness was examined and rest of the witnesses were not examined by the enquiry officer. According to Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant, nothing was established against the appellant. It was contended that the style of examination of the witness was also erroneous. It was also contended that the copies of the documents which were relied upon were not furnished to the appellant and even during cross-examination the contents of such documents have not been discussed. It was further contended that the allegation of bribe having been taken by the appellant has not been proved as no one who ga