IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings against bank employee were found time-barred and lacking specific charges, violating principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Ms. P. Banerjee, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank via video conference, along with Mr. Adarsh Dhanuka, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Diganta Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Indrajit Bhuyan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.

2. The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted by the appellant Bank, herein, assailing the judgment & order, dated 23.11.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)1525/2023, interfering with the penalty imposed upon the sole respondent by the appellant Bank vide order, dated01.02.2023.

3. The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under:

A departmental proceeding came to be instituted against the respondent, herein, vide issuance of a charge-sheet, dated 30.08.2022, proposing to hold an inquiry under the provisions of Regulation 39.1(b) of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2010(as amended).

It is seen that as many as 6(six) allegations came to be levelled against the respondent, herein. The allegations so levelled against him, pertained to the manner in which the respondent as a member of a Committee, had approved sanction of loans and also enhancement of the credit limit to different borrowers.

The respondent, herein, submitted his written statement of defence, pursuant to the charge-sheet, dated 30.08.2022, on 30.09.2022, and therein, dealt with each of the allegations so levelled against him. The respondent, herein, while denying the allegations so levelled against him, had also contended that the said allegations were also perverse to the records as maintained in connection with each of the financial credits, so sanctioned.

After the respondent had submitted his written statement on30.09.2022, the disciplinary authority had issued an addendum on 21.12.2022, and therein, had effected certain corrections with regard to the dates of sanction of loans pertaining to 3(three) of the 6(six) borrowers involved in the charge-sheet, dated 30.08.2022. The respondent, herein, vide his additional written statement of defence on 06.01.2023, replied to the addendum, dated 21.12.2022. In the additional written statement of defence submitted by the respondent on 06.01.2023, he again dealt with each of the allegations so levelled against him and prayed that the same be dropped.

The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the written statement of defence as submitted by the respondent in the matter; directed for holding of an inquiry into the allegations so levelled against him vide the charge-sheet, dated 30.08.2022.

On conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, the Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report on 21.01.2023, which was duly forwarded to the respondent, herein. The respondent, thereafter, submitted his representation against the inquiry report and therein, highlighted the inconsistencies so existing in the conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer with regard to the charges so held to have been partially established against him.

The disciplinary authority, thereafter, vide order, dated 01.02.2023, by concurring with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and also coming to the conclusion that the charges so levelled against the respondent, herein, was established beyond doubt; proceeded to impose upon the respondent, penalty of “Reduction of Basic Pay by 1(one) stage with cumulative effect.

The respondent, herein, was further barred from appearing in any promotional interview/test of the appellant Bank for a period of 1(one) year with effect from the date of issuance of the order, dated 01.02.2023.

The respondent preferred an appeal in the matter. However, the same was rejected by the Board of Directors(BoDs) of the appellant Bank. Such rejection was communicated to the respondent