At, High Court of Bihar
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.N. SINGH
For the Appearing Parties: ----------
J.N. SINGH, J.
(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) In this writ application petitioner has prayed for quashing of the office order No. 4644 dated 22.10.2001 issued by the Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Respondent No. 3), appointing the Deputy General Manager-cum-Chief Vigilance Officer as Conducting Officer of his enquiry (An
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nexure-5), enquiry report dated 9.4.2002 (Annexure-15/B) and the punishment order dated 21.5.2002 (Annexure-18). By the punishment order 50% of the petitioner's leave salary and other amounts payable to him have been ordered to be forfeited.
(3.) The short point raised by the petitioner in this case is that as per Standing Regulation of the Bank, the Managing Director himself was to hold enquiry in the case of superior staff of the Bank, whereas in this case the Managing Director has delegated his power of enquiry to the Chief Vigilance Officer who was subordinate to him and therefore the enquiry is completely vitiated on account of violation of the provisions of the Standing Regulations of the Bank. In this context learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to one judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5591 of 1995, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ application.
(4.) Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in earlier case of the petitioner there was a direction for appointment of conducting Officer and therefore the Chief vigilance Officer was appointed as Conducting officer of the enquiry. He further submitted that at that point of time Board of Directors stood superseded and the than Managing Director was exercising powers of the Board of Directors as well as Chairman. Since the Staff Regulation provided for passing of the punishment order and its approval by the Chairman and the Board of Directors respectively which power was also being exercised by the Managing Director, the Managing Director thought it proper to get the enquiry conducted against the petitioner by another authority of the Bank.
(5.) This submission of the respondents stands completely answered by this Court in the earlier Judgment in the case of this very 'Bank, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ application. I may usefully quote the findings arrived at by this Court in the said judgment which answers the submission of the respondents-Bank it may be that the powers of the Board and the Chairman were being exercised by the Managing Director on account of supersession of the Board of Director but that would not absolve the Managing Director from complying with the requirements of Regulation 33(a) which does not empower the Managing Director to delegate his functions or duties, required to be performed by him alone, to any other subordinate officer. In this view of the matter the proceedings beyond the stage of calling for the petitioners' explanations have not been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Regulation 33(a) of the Staff Regulations and the conclusion of the proceedings by imposition of impugned penalties cannot therefore be sustained.
(6.) In the circumstances, in view of the findings arrived at by this Court earlier in the identical matter as annexed at Annexure-7 to the writ application, I have no option but to quash the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the Managing Director from the stage of service of chargesheet to the petitioner for holding enquiry himself, if so advised, in accordance with the Staff Regulation of the Bank and get the matter decided by the competent authority of the Bank, if necessary, strictly in terms of the Staff Regulation and in compliance of the principles of natural justice. With the aforssaid observations and directions, this writ application stands allowed