JUDGMENT
1. This writ application has been filed by the sole petitioner for quashing the order contained in Annexure ‘1’ passed by Disciplinary Authority by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service, and the order contained in Annexure ‘2’ passed by Appellate Authority upholding the order of dismissal.
2. In view of the nature of the order which we are going to pass in this case, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that a disciplinary proceeding was started against the petitioner by respondent Bank in which an Inquiring Officer was appointed. Upon conclusion of enquiry, the Inquiring Officer recorded the following three findings:
(i) The petitioner failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost devotion;
(ii) The Bank failed to prove the charge that the petitioner was not discharging his duties with utmost integrity, honesty and diligence;
(iii) The Bank further failed to prove that the petitioner defrauded the Bank to the tune of Rs. 1,500 by misusing official power of the Branch Manager conferred upon him and acted otherwise than in his best judgment.
3. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued second show-cause notice to the petitioner, which is contained in Annexure ‘9’ requiring the petitioner to appear before him as the Disciplinary Authority was of the view that the Inquiring Officer was not justified in recording the later two findings in favour of the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of dismissal, contained in Annexure ‘1’, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority under its order contained in Annexure ‘2’. Hence this application before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised various points in support of the writ application, but it is not necessary to consider all the points argued by the learned counsel. It has been submitted that while passing the order of dismissal, the Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration extraneous matters. In the order of dismissal (Annexure- 1) it has been mentioned by the Disciplinary Authority that a case for exbezzlement of Rs. 1,20,000 was pending against the petitioner before a competent court. It has also been mentioned in the order that the Bank had granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in two cases registered by Central Bureau of Investigation. It is stated that the facts relating to these three cases have not come during the course of enquiry. No material whatsoever has been produced during the course of enquiry regarding these three cases against the petitioner.
5. Shri K.D. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, could not dispute the proposition that the facts relating to these three cases were not brought before the Inquiring Officer by adducing any material. He, however, contended that the Disciplinary Authority has not taken these three cases to be circumstances against the petitioner while considering whether the charge has been proved or not. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that submission was made that he had a clear service record. In reply to that, only the Disciplinary Authority has enumerated about these three cases and these three cases had got no connection with any of the charges.
6. From a bare perusal of the order (Annexure-1) it appears that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned order has considered the facts regarding these three cases. It is very difficult to say that while recording the finding that charges have been proved, he has not taken into consideration the facts relating to these three cases. At least this much is clear that pendency of these three cases had prejudiced the mind of the Disciplinary Authority at the time of taking the decision. Since the Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration extraneous matters before awarding the punishment of dismissal, in our view, the order of dismissal cannot be allowed to be maintained and consequently, the order passed by the Appellate Authority becomes also unwarranted.
7. In the result, this application is allowed and the orders contained in Annexures-1 and 2 are quashed. Now the Disciplinary Authority will apply its mind afresh to the enquiry report and pass order in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs.