JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J. : The petitioner, an employee of the Dhenkanal Gramya Bank, has filed this petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.05.1999, vide Annexure-7 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing a major penalty of his removal from his in the Bank under Regulation 30(1) of Dhenkanal Gramya Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1982, hereinafter to be referred to as “1982 Regulation”, in short, and the subsequent order dated 28.08.1999, vide Annexure-8, passed by Appellate Authority directing to reinstate him in Bank’s service with cut in increment, fitting him in the initial Pay Scale and treating the period of his suspension as period not spent on duty and debarring him from first line assignment for a period of five years from the date of reinstatement and rejecting his further appeal preferred on 14.05.2002, vide Annexure-14, against the order of imposition of the aforesaid penalty.

2.The short facts of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was a Scale-I Officer in Dhenkanal Gramya Bank. On allegation of serious acts of commissions and omissions having been committed by him, charge was framed against him on 29.10.1998, vide Annexure-1, with statement of imputations while he was serving as Manager at Indipur Branch and he was called upon to file show cause reply. In compliance to that, the petitioner filed his show cause reply on 11.11.1998, vide Annexure-2, indicating that by the alleged acts of commissions or omissions, the Bank had not sustained any pecuniary loss. On consideration of show cause reply, one N.P. Pradhan, an office of the Bank, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Presiding Officer as well as the petitioner submitted list of witnesses as well as documents on 30.12.1998. The petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to take the assistance of one Sri B.K. Mohanty, a retired Gazetted Officer of Central Government, as defence assistance, but the same was turned down on 16.01.1999. Thereafter, on 27.01.1999 the petitioner made a representation to opposite party No.1 to change the Enquiry Officer as he was biased and was not following the rules and regulations of departmental proceeding. On 01.02.1999 after receiving such representation, the petitioner was placed under suspension and he was debarred from visiting any of the branches of the Bank during the period of suspension, vide Annexure-4. On 16.02.1999 enquiry was completed and on 17.05.1999, vide Annexure-6, a letter was issued to the petitioner by opposite party No.1 to file show cause reply to the proposed punishment of his removal from service, which would not be a disqualification for his future employment and provided a chance of personal hearing on 18.05.1999 at 4 P.M.

3.On 20.05.1999 vide Annexure-7, the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order removing the petitioner from Bank’s service with immediate effect, which would not be a disqualification for future employment. The period of suspension was treated as the period not spent on duty and during the period of suspension no other amount/allowance was paid other than the subsistence allowance.

4.Against the said order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Board of Directors on 16.06.1999. On 28.08.1999, the Board of Directors on consideration of the appeal, modified the order of the Disciplinary Authority directing reinstatement of the petitioner in Bank’s service with cut in increment and fitting him in the initial stage of pay scale presently drawn by him and the period of his suspension was treated as period not spent on duty with no other allowance or amount to be paid to him, other than subsistence allowance already paid and debarring him from the first line assignment for a period of 5 years from the date of reinstatement and there would be a review after completion of said 5 years regarding suitability for giving him first line assignment and decision was taken by the Chairman vide Annexure-8.

5.Having not sat