IMPORTANT POINT
Bank employees must maintain high standards of integrity; misconduct leading to loss of confidence justifies disciplinary penalties.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order dated 30.09.2015, issued by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing upon the petitioner a penalty of “Reduction of basic pay by 4(four) stages with cumulative effect” on conclusion of a departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Officer in the Pragjyotish Gaonlia Bank on 04.06.1984. The said bank, on amalgamation with Lakhimi Gaonlia Bank, Cachar Gramin Bank and Subansiri Gaonlia Bank came to be re-named as “Assam Gramin Vikash Bank” w.e.f., 12.01.2006. The Assam Gramin Vikash Bank was sponsored by United Bank of India and is a joint venture between the Government of India, the Government of Assam and the United Bank of India. The petitioner, accordingly, became an employee of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank on its establishment. While the petitioner was so discharging his duties, the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority of the respondent no. 1 bank, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 11.06.2014, leveling allegations against him therein, of having committed misconduct during his tenure as Branch Manager of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Doomdooma Branch during the period 02.08.2004 to 29.07.2008. In the said show-cause notice, 4(four) charges came to be so leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner on the basis of the misconduct alleged against him, was charged of having exposed the bank to suffer a total financial loss of Rs.5,96,352/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty two only) as on 31.03.2014 plus interest.

4. The petitioner, on receipt of the said show-cause notice submitted his reply thereto. However, on not being satisfied with the reply so submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was directed to be so conducted into the allegations so leveled against the petitioner vide the show-cause notice dated 11.06.2014. The petitioner had participated in the departmental enquiry so held in the matter. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 16.05.2015. A copy of the said enquiry report was forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner, requiring him to submit his representation thereon. The petitioner contends that a representation against the said enquiry report was also submitted by him.

5. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, on consideration of the enquiry report and the representation as submitted thereon, by the petitioner and also on perusal of the materials coming on record in the enquiry, proceeded vide the order dated 30.09.2015, to hold that the allegations leveled against the petitioner stood established and accordingly, imposed a penalty of “Reduction of basic pay by 4(four) stages with cumulative effect” on the petitioner.

6. In view of the imposition of the said penalty upon the petitioner, vide the order dated 30.09.2015, his basic pay of Rs.45950/- plus 3 stagnation increments of Rs.4080/- stood reduced to Rs.40710/- plus 3 stagnation increments of Rs.4080/- w.e.f., 01.10.2015. The next date of increment of the petitioner was so prescribed to fall on 01.10.2016. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an appeal in the matter, however, the same was not disposed of. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.

7. Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the allegations so leveled against the petitioner, vide the show-cause notice dated 11.06.2014, has submitted that the steps as taken by the petitioner for sanctioning the loans involved, were so done keeping in view the interest of the bank. Mr. Chakravarty, submits that the loans having been issued by the petitioner, the bank authorities, after his transfer from the said Branch, had not taken th