The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice in conducting departmental proceedings, including the supply of relevant documents and the service of a second show cause notice on the proposed punishment.

JUDGMENT

B.K.NAYAK, J.-The Petitioner, who was working as Field Officer in the Kalinga Gramya Bank, Naharana Branch, previously known as Cuttack Gramya Bank, has filed this writ application challenging the order of punishment of dismissal from service dated 21.6.2003 (Annexure-18) and also the affirming Appellate Order Dated 21.11.2003 vide Annexure-19 with a further prayer to direct reinstatement of his service with all consequential service benefits.

2. It may be mentioned here that earlier this writ application had been disposed of vide Judgment dated 13.4.2009 quashing the original and Appellate orders of punishment under Annexures-18 and 19 with direction to reinstate the Petitioner in service with 50% back wages, giving a liberty to the Opp. Parties-management to go for denovo disciplinary enquiry. The Opp. Party-Bank challenged the said Judgment by filing Civil Appeal No.397 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (C) No.21235 of 2009) before the Apex Court. By Order Dated 15.01.2010 the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the earlier Judgment of this Court and remitted the matter directing this Court to decide the writ application afresh on merits. This is how the Writ Petition was again heard.

3. The case of the Petitioner, as per averments made in the writ application is that while working as an Officer in the Head Office of the Cuttack Gramya Bank, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was served with statement of allegations and articles of charges under letter dated 22.03.2003 of the disciplinary authority. (Annexure-9) with a direction to submit his written statement of defence within seven days. The charges were served through a Special Messenger while the Petitioner was on leave. The charges against the Petitioner read as follows:

"I) Sri Lenka did not work as per instruction given to him by the General Manager. He was instructed to exclusively look after deposit mobilization and to submit a weekly progress report. He did not function sincerely and properly and defied higher Officer's instructions. Thus, he violated Regulation 17 of Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2000.

II) Sri Lenka did not obtain prior sanction of his leave nor informed in advance about his absence of duty. He did not resume his duty in bank's exigencies during Annual Closing in spite of two Telegrams and three letters served to him. There by Sri Lanka has intentionally not carried out higher Official's order in violation of Service Regulation 17 and 19 of Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2000.

III) Sri Lenka has remained on sudden leave without any prior information/ sanction in the month of February/March 03 during Annual Closing work despite repeated instructions to him through Telephone/Telegram and letters. Sri Lenka's above action is detrimental to the interest of the Bank, thereby violated Regulation 22 of Cuttack Gramya Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2000.

IV) Sri Lenka had sanctioned and disbursed four Gold Loan accounts at Brahmapura Branch where the pledged ornaments were spurious in nature and could not be auctioned. These loan accounts had become NPA and the bank suffered nearly a loss of Rs.18,300 plus unapplied interest."

4. On 23.03.2003 the Petitioner extended his leave on medical ground and by his letter dated 26.3.2003 under Annexure-10 requested the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No.2 to grant 15 days further time for filing written statement of defence. On 28.3.2003 the Petitioner submitted his preliminary written statement (Annexure-11) stating therein that he had not received any paper/documents relating to the charges as a result of which he was not in a position to admit or deny the charges in categorical terms and therefore requested for supply of papers/documents on the basis of which the charges were framed. It was further indicated therein that in letter No.CAD/HO/1630/2002-03 dated 05.03.2003 the General Manager alleged that he (Petitioner)