Point of Law: Regulation 6 (2) of Regulation of 1976 stipulates that it is either Disciplinary Authority who could enquire into truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an officer employee or appoint any other public servant to enquire into truth.

JUDGMENT :

(D. Baruah, J.)

Heard Mr. N. Nath, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4982/2018 whereby the writ petition was partly allowed.

3. In order to decide the legality of the impugned judgment and order, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal.

4. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein initially joined the Respondent Bank as Clerk on 24.04.1989. The appellant was granted promotion to Scale-I, thereafter to Scale-II and subsequently to Scale-III in the year 2006, 2009 & 2013 respectively. At the time of promotion to Scale-III on 06.08.2013, the appellant was posted as the Senior Manager at the Kokrajhar Branch of the Respondent Bank.

5. On 01.08.2015, the appellant was placed under suspension. Subsequent thereto, on 08.10.2015, a show cause notice was issued by the Zonal Manager of the Respondent Bank (the Disciplinary Authority) thereby alleging that the appellant had acted in gross violation of the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (for short, ‘the Regulation of 1976’) . To the said show cause notice, the appellant submitted a reply on 28.10.2015 thereby stating that the appellant had done no wrong to the bank intentionally. Thereupon, on 10.06.2016, a charge-sheet was issued stating inter-alia that the reply so submitted to the show cause notice dated 08.10.2015 was not satisfactory. Along with the said charge-sheet, the Statement of Allegation was enclosed along with Articles of Charges. The appellant thereupon submitted his reply on 21.06.2016. The Disciplinary Authority vide the communication dated 27.10.2016 intimated the Appellant that the Disciplinary Authority has decided to proceed further for holding an enquiry against the appellant and one Sri Dipak Das, Chief Manager (retired) had been appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire the charges framed against the appellant.

6. The Enquiry Officer, thereupon, conducted the enquiry proceedings wherein the appellant had duly participated and submitted the Enquiry Report on 18.03.2017.

7. From a perusal of the said Enquiry Report enclosed as Annexure-G to the writ petition, it transpires that the allegation Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 were partly proved and the allegation Nos.6 & 7 were proved.

8. The said Enquiry Report thereupon was furnished to the Appellant by the respondent authorities vide the communication dated 11.09.2017 seeking comments on the enquiry report within three days from the date of receipt of the letter. It further reveals that the Appellant submitted his reply stating inter-alia that he denied all the allegations, charges except Allegation No.3 and further that he had submitted all the necessary documents during the enquiry proceedings along with the defence representative and therefore sought the exoneration from all the allegations. It further reveals that the Disciplinary Authority vide an order dated 12.12.2017 imposed the punishment of dismissal from the bank service.

9. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulation of 1976 before the General Manager (Appellate Authority), HRM Department of the Respondent Bank on 23.01.2018. It further reveals that on 18.05.2018, the Appellate Authority affirmed the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority thereby dismissing the Appeal of the Appellant. It is under such circumstances the writ petition was filed challenging the show cause notice dated 08.10.2015, the charge-sheet dated 10.06.2016, the enquiry report dated 18.03.2017, the dismissal order dated 12.12.2017 as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated 18.05.2018. The record shows that the respondent authorities have filed an affidavit-in-opposition taking various preli