The Court emphasized the limited scope of writ jurisdiction, the principles of judicial review, and the exclusive power of fact-finding authorities in disciplinary proceedings. The Court upheld the dismissal, highlighting the sufficiency of evidence and the absence of procedural impropriety.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM LODH, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by way of challenging the order of penalty of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority, affirmed by the appellate authority and for a direction upon the respondents for reinstating him in service with all consequential service benefits.

2. Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner being an employee of respondent-Tripura Gramin Bank, Bishalgarh Branch [hereinafter referred to as Bank] was faced with a disciplinary proceeding. A charge-sheet was submitted against him vide Memo dated 07.02.2012. As many as 14 (fourteen) charges levelled against him along with imputation of misconduct having been violated regulations 18 and 20 of the Tripura Gramin Bank [Officers and Employees] Service Regulations, 2010 by not complying with the rules and regulations of the Bank, etc. The crux of the charges is that the petitioner while in service under the Bank had prepared many irregular vouchers against different account nos. in the name of different persons. Huge money was siphoned off by him causing financial loss with the Bank. As Second officer of the Branch, the petitioner made entries and passed the entries without preparing any vouchers by himself fraudulently, thereby misappropriated Bank's money being indulged in financial indiscipline, fictitious entries were made and passed by him, acting with malafide intention detrimental to the interest of the Bank against violation of the relevant provision of the regulations of the Tripura Gramin Bank [Officers and Employees] Service Regulation, 2010. In course of proceeding, the petitioner had submitted written statement in his defence denying the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry. The petitioner participated in the proceeding, evidences were recorded by their respective witnesses. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 14th August, 2014 holding that the charges 1 to 12 and 14 were fully proved wherein charge No. 13 was proved partially. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. He was allowed to make his representation against the report of the Enquiry Officer which he did vide communication dated 8th September, 2014. At one point of time the petitioner had challenged the decision of the disciplinary authority since according to him, it was not a reasoned order and the said order of the disciplinary authority being challenged, this High Court in WP (C) No. 299/2015, dated 09.02.2016 had interfered with the decision of the disciplinary authority directing him to pass a reasoned order dealing with the submissions raised by the delinquent officer in his representation directed against the enquiry report. Similar direction was also issued upon the appellate authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

3. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority had passed a reasoned order dated 9th March, 2016 imposing a penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner, the relevant portion of the order may be reproduced herein-below:-

“...So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of your misconduct, I, the undersigned, being the Disciplinary Authority, impose the following punishment as per sub-regulation 1(b) of regulation 39 of Tripura Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010.

“DISMISSAL WHICH SHALL ORDINARILY BE A DISQUALIFICATION FOR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT” with immediate effect.

The period of your suspension will not be treated as on duty and you will not be paid any pay and allowances except what has already been paid during the period of suspension and also in terms of the Hon'ble High Court's order as subsistence allowance.”

4. Being aggrieved by the order of said penalty, the petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority had affirmed and upheld the punishment order of dismissal dated 09.03.2016 imposed by the disciplinary authority and the said order of the appel