IMPORTANT POINT
Departmental proceedings must be initiated by the appointing authority, and failure to comply with this requirement renders the proceedings void, violating principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Katakey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents Assam State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd..

2. The above-noted writ petition was heard and disposed of by this Court vide judgment & order(oral), dated 21.03.2024. However, the petitioner had preferred a review petition being Review Petition No. 101/2024, before this Court, praying for review of the said judgment & order. The said review petition upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 11.09.2024, recalling the judgment & order (oral), dated 21.03.2024. The present writ petition was accordingly, restored to file and was again heard and thereafter, came to be reserved for judgment. The writ petition, accordingly, is being disposed of by the present order.

3. The challenge in the present proceeding is to an order, dated 21.10.2013, issued by the Respondent No. 2, herein, towards imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner on conclusion of a departmental proceeding initiated against him. The petitioner has also in the present proceeding, assailed the Inquiry Report submitted in the matter pursuant to the Show Cause Notice, dated 16.07.2007, issued to the petitioner, herein.

4. The petitioner while rendering his service as an Internal Auditor at the Head Office of the respondent Assam State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd., came to be placed under suspension vide an order, dated 18.04.2007, in contemplation of drawal of a departmental proceeding against him. The said order of suspension was followed by issuance of a Show Cause Notice, dated 16.07.2007, initiating a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, herein, basing on 16 allegations and consequential charges as levelled against him.

5. On receipt of the Show Cause Notice, dated 16.07.2007, the petitioner submitted an application, dated 05.09.2007, praying for access to the relevant documents basing on which the said Show Cause Notice was so issued to him. In response to the said application as submitted by the petitioner; the respondent Bank vide a communication, dated 05.10.2007, proceeded to allow the petitioner to inspect the documents, with a stipulation that no copy of the documents would be furnished to him. The petitioner having not been able to access the documents for preparation of his written statement proceeded vide his representation, dated 20.10.2007, to again request the Respondent No. 2 for access to the relevant documents by highlighting that inspite of permission being granted to have access to the relevant documents, the concerned branches of the Bank had refused to grant to him access to the relevant documents. The said representation was followed by another representation, dated 23.10.2007, wherein, the petitioner had highlighted the documents, he requires for inspection. The documents so sought for also included the preliminary Inquiry Report. The access being not granted to the petitioner to the documents as sought by him for the purpose of preparation of his written statement; the petitioner, proceeded to submit his written statement in the matter on 03.11.2011 with the stipulation that in the absence of the documents as sought for by, his preparation of the written statement had been greatly prejudiced.

6. At this stage; it is to be noted that the petitioner vide the representation, dated 11.12.2007, had required the Respondent No. 2 to drop the departmental proceeding as initiated against him vide the Show Cause Notice, dated 16.07.2007, on the ground that the appointing authority in his case being the Board and the Board having not approved the initiation of the departmental proceeding against him and the Show Cause Notice, dated 16.07.2007, being issued at the instance of the Respondent No. 2 who is not authorized to do so; prayed that the departmental proceeding so initiated against him, requires to be dr