The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed must be proportionate and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the failure to supply relevant documents and examine material witnesses can impact the validity of the disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

Prayers made

2. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has thrown challenge to the order of punishment dated 01.12.2015, by which he has been dismissed from services and further for quashing the appellate order dated 15.02.2016, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment has been dismissed.

Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to reinstate him to the post of Staff Officer, treating the period of dismissal as continuance in service.

Factual Matrix

3. As per the factual matrix, while the petitioner was posted as Credit Officer at Ranchi Main Branch of Jharkhand Gramin Bank, an FIR was lodged by one Sri Pradeep Kumar, the then Manager of Ranchi Branch of respondent-Bank stating therein that during his Inter Branch Reconciliation, it came to his notice that a fake transaction of Rs.7,46,500/- had been done in Ranchi Branch of the respondent-Bank. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR being Chutia P.S. Case No. 38/13 was registered against three accused persons namely, Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Arjun Thakur and Aman Anand. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said FIR, he was not made accused. Subsequently, another FIR No. 45/13 was also lodged by Sri Binod Bihari Das, the then Manager of Raikera Branch of respondent-Bank at Kamdara P.S. stating therein that during his inter branch reconciliation, it was found that on 31.05.2003, an amount of Rs.2,19,000/- was illegally credited into the S.B. A/c. No. 1711 of Shri Mahesh Kumar. In course of internal investigation, the said Mahesh Kumar stated in his written report dated 23.09.2013 that the then Manager Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav had credited the aforementioned amount in his bank account No. 1711. However, this amount was returned by Shri Mahesh Kumar to Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav on different dates.

4. For the aforesaid illegal acts, the petitioner was issued show-cause dated 28.06.2013 asking his reply within seven days of receipt of the said show-cause which regarding commission of alleged irregularities during his posting at Ranchi Branch. However, the petitioner, in want of certain documents which were not supplied by the respondent-Bank, could not submit his explanation within time.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested by Chutia Police on 13.09.2013 in connection with FIR No. 38/13 and hence, he was put under suspension by the Chairman of the respondent-Bank vide order dated 17.09.2013 w.e.f. 13.09.2013. The respondent No. 3 again issued another show-cause seeking reply of the petitioner but inadvertently, the petitioner could not submit his explanation. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 decided to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner was informed and served with charge-sheet vide letter dated 09.01.2015. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding started on 19.02.2015 and same was concluded on 13.07.2015. Though the petitioner participated in the said enquiry through his representative but some important documents demanded by the petitioner in his defence were neither provided to him on the pretext that the same were missing from Branch record. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report dated 16.09.2015 to the General Manager of the respondent-Bank holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thereafter, as per instructions of the General Manager-cum-Competent Authority of the respondent-Bank, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply/ representation dated 03.10.2015, on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. However, the respondent No. 2 without giving 2nd show-cause and providing personal hearing, passed the order of dismissal from service, dated 01.12.2015, which shall ordinarily puts effect disqualify the petitioner from future employment also.

6. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal which also stood dismissed on 15.02.2016, confirming t