JUDGMENT
Ram Nandan Prasad, J.
1. The petitioner is Assistant Manager in the Respondent-Bank. At the relevant time he was posted at Suhai Branch of Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank. For his misconduct a proceeding was initiated and a copy of charge, Annexure-1 was furnished on him. The charges levelled against him are as follows :–
1. He installed a personal telephone at Suhai Branch about more than two years ago without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority in writing. This telephone was frequently used by him for his Union Activities in contacting the members and sabotaging the smooth functioning of the Management. He kept himself fully engaged for Union Activities through this Phone during working hours of the Bank and did not put his attention in recovery of the loans at Suhai Branch at all. Sri Choudhary recovered only Rs. 54 thousand in Dummy Ledgers against the target of Rs. 280 thousand for the year 2000-2001.
2. He is in the habit of misbehaving with the senior officers during office hours. On 20.2.1999 Sri Choudhary used unparliamentary language while talking to Sri J.C. Choudhary. General Manager of the Bank over Telephone during office hour at Head Office. He was issued the charge sheet on 11.10.1999 for his such act of misconduct.
3. On 8.4.2002 Sri Choudhary used his personal telephone of Suhai Branch and abused Sri R.N. Paswan, Area Manager, ‘Hajipur in very dirty and derogatory languages which is appended below. Main Ram Nagina Choudhary, Sahaik Prabandhak Sakha-Suhai, Jila Sitamarhi Bol Raha Huan. Main Kshetriya Prabandhak Shri R. N. Paswan se bat karna chahta huan. Is par Maine Kaha bhi main R.N. Paswan hin bol raha huan. Iske bad yah kahane laga ki sala, bahanchod, maa ki chod, betichod tumko maih juta se marunga. Tumne mere khilaf janch prativedan dene ka sahas kaise kiya hai jiske karan mujhe memo huaa hai. Mai sale, betichod K.K. Pandey, Chairman ko bhi pradhan karyalaya men hin jakar marunga jisne tumhare janch prativedan par mukhe memo nirgat kiya hai.
2. The petitioner filed show cause in his defence, after enquiry, report was submitted to the disciplinary authority, Annexure-2/1. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge No. 1 has been proved and charge Nos. 2 and 3 have not been proved. The disciplinary authority differed with the enquiry report with respect to charge No. 3 giving reasons of difference. A notice along with reason of difference and proposed punishment was served to the petitioner asking him to file second show cause. The petitioner filed second show cause and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed order of punishment, Annexure-4. The petitioner was reprimanded with respect to charge No. 1 and with respect to charge No. 3 he was degraded to one lower stage in his incremental scale with cumulative effect permanently. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order. The appeal was dismissed vide order Annexure-6/1.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which stand has been taken that one of the charges was found established by the Enquiry Officer and with respect to charge No. 3 reason of difference was assigned by the disciplinary authority and the notice was served mentioning the reason requiring the petitioner to file second show cause which he filed and then the order of punishment Annexure-4 was passed. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order Annexure-4 was passed. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order Annexure-4 has been dismissed vide Annexure-6/1. In nut shell in the counter affidavit the orders Annexures-4 and 6/1 have been supported.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that the order of the appellate authority is non-speaking. Moreover, it appears from the said order that there was no application of mind. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of the appellate authority is valid in law.
5. On consideration of the submission this much is obvious that enquiry report was submitted saying that charge No. 1 has been proved and charge Nos. 2 and 3 have not been proved. The disciplinary authority differed with the enquiry report with respect to charge No. 3 giving reasons of difference and accordingly notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to file second show cause. The petitioner filed second show cause and on consideration of the material on record including the second show cause the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment as indicated above. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order of punishment, Annexure-4 which was rejected vide order Annexure-6/1.
6. It appears from the order Annexure-6/1 that it is not a reasoned order as it has been stated that the Board has gone through the charge sheet, enquiry report and other relevant papers and documents and has come to the conclusion that the appeal has no merit for reduction in quantum of punishment and accordingly, rejected the appeal with direction to recover the telephone bill as mentioned in the charge sheet. It appears from the order that neither any reason has been assigned for rejecting the appeal nor any attention has been given to the ground taken by the petitioner for assailing the order of punishment. It further appears that there was nothing about the bill of telephone but the appellate authority has rejected the appeal with a direction to recover the telephone bill as mentioned in the charge sheet. This indicates non-application of mind in passing the order at the appellate stage.
7. Thus, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order Annexure-6/1 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the case after hearing the petitioner by a reasoned order in accordance with law.