The main legal point established is that departmental proceedings must comply with the applicable policies and regulations, including time limitations, and adhere to the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the need for specific charges and individual roles in alleged lapses to impose penalties.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. U. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Chetia, learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. The writ petitioner herein is serving as Chief Manager in the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (AGVB) and is presently posted at the Head Office of the Bank at Guwahati. While he was serving as Senior Manager in the Bank, posted at the Nalbari Branch, on 30.08.2022, a Memorandum of Charge (charge-sheet) was served upon the petitioner containing as many as six articles of charges. On 30.09.2022 the petitioner had submitted his reply thereby denying all the allegations brought against him. However, not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Chairman of the Bank, had decided to hold a departmental proceeding into the charges brought against the writ petitioner. Consequently, Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and the enquiry proceeding was held. On conclusion of the enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Officer had submitted report dated 21.01.2023 which was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Chairman of the Bank. On receipt of the enquiry report dated 21.01.2023, by the order dated 01.02.2023, major penalty was imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. By referring to the articles of the charges, Mr. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the materials on record would clearly go to show that the credit facilities were extended to all the six entities after thorough verification of their credentials by the designated committees and also after carrying out inspection of the units by the authorized inspecting team. Mr. Das submits that his client did not take any decision at the individual level but was merely a member of the recommending committee. Considering the fact that the credentials of the defaulting firms had been duly verified by the successive committees and the loan disbursement was processed on the basis of report of the inspecting team, submits Mr. Das, there was no justifiable ground to initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. By relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. and others Vs. Girish Chandra Sarma reported in (2007) 7 SCC 206 Mr. Das submits that since the petitioner was a part of a committee, hence, he could not have been singled out and made a scapegoat in the entire process when there is no specific role ascribed to the petitioner in his individual capacity.

4. By referring to the provisions of Rule 10.2(b) of the AGVB Staff Accountability Policy, 2021, Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further argued that after two regular inspections were conducted pertaining to the disbursement of the loans, there was no scope for the authorities to initiate an enquiry proceeding into the said transactions after the lapse of more than two years since the same was barred under the provisions of the AGVB Staff Accountability Police, 2021. Notwithstanding the same, the authorities have chosen to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner only to make him a scapegoat. Contending that there is neither any allegation nor any material available on record to indicate fraud, collusion or any malafide action on the part of the petitioner or any of the members of the recommending committee, in view of Clause 10.2(b) of the Policy of 2021, Mr. Das submits that it was not permissible for the authorities to initiate a departmental proceeding in respect of the loan transactions which had taken place more than two years prior to the submission of the charge-sheet.

5. Mr. Das has also invited the attention of this Court to the findings and observations made in t