Departmental inquiries must be conducted with due adherence to principles of natural justice, requiring actual proof of allegations presented.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 23-12-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs :-

“a) For grant of an appropriate writ for quashing the order no. HO/DAD/04/11- 12/No.962 dated 7/1/2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority cum General Manager awarding the punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 39 (2) (b) (vi) of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (Annexure 6).

b) For grant of an appropriate writ for quashing order no. HO/DAD/05/12-13/112 dated 11/5/2012 passed by the Appellate Authority cum Chairman Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office- Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur disposing of the appeal of the petitioner by upholding the order of the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service (Annexure 8).

c) For grant of an appropriate writ for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post held by him with effect from the date of dismissal along with all the back wages payable to him.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while posted as an Office Assistant of Bagharsi Branch and Hathauri Branch of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank between the years 1997 and 2006, the petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding. A memo of charge was served on him on 14.5.2010 asking him to file his reply within ten days. The petitioner filed his reply on 30.6.2011. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 1.11.2011 to which the petitioner filed his response on 3.12.2011. 4. The petitioner was served with a proposed order dated 26.12.2011 issued under the signature of the Disciplinary Authority-cum-General Manager asking him to reply if he has anything to submit regarding the proposed punishment of dismissal from service in terms of the Regulation of the Bank. The petitioner submitted his reply on 3.1.2012, on which the respondents issued an order dated 7.1.2012 under the signature of the Disciplinary Authority-cum-General Manager awarding the punishment of dismissal from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 11.5.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority.

5. It is against both these orders i.e. the order of punishment dated 7.1.2012 and the order dated 11.5.2012 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner that the instant application has been preferred for the reliefs as stated herein above.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry was not conducted as per Regulation 43(a) of the Service Regulations for the reason that the same should have been sent to the Central Vigilance Commission. There was violation of the principles of natural justice and no witness was examined in course of enquiry. As such neither any document was proved nor marked exhibit. In reference to the order of dismissal, learned counsel further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration the past record of the petitioner.

7. The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the Bank who submits that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice nor any provisions of the Regulation. The documents exhibited were seen both by the petitioner as also the Enquiry Officer. They were marked exhibit and only thereafter they were considered in the enquiry report. With respect to the reference to the past record of the petitioner, it is submitted that though the same find mentions in the order impugned, however the same has not been taken into consideration in passing the order of dismissal.

8