1. This petition has been preferred against the order of compulsory retirement dated 18.12.2010 passed by respondent no.1, Saurashtra Gramin Bank, against the petitioner as also the order dated 08.07.2011 passed in appeal filed before respondent no.2, appellate authority of respondent-Bank, whereby the said appeal was rejected and the order of compulsory retirement passed by respondent no.1. was confirmed.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank w.e.f. 05.01.1981 and he had served as such at different Branches of the Bank. The petitioner was issued charge-sheet dated 23.05.2009 inter alia alleging that while he was serving at the Ran Branch of respondent-Bank during 21.02.2005 to 12.05.2008, he had committed breach of the relevant provisions of the Saurashtra Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees') Service Regulations inasmuch as he had acquired an immovable property where the respondent-Bank was a tenant and was running one of its Branches, without the consent of the respondent-Bank. Departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and ultimately, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed by order dated 18.12.2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority of the Bank. However, the said appeal was rejected by order dated 08.07.2011. Against the above orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Mr.
P.P. Majmudar learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of respondent-Bank of imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement is illegal and bad in law as the same has been passed when the appeal against the original order of punishment was still pending before the appellate authority. He submitted that the respondent-Bank pre-judged the issue by paying the retirement dues though the appeal was pending adjudication. He further submitted that the punishment imposed is very harsh considering the misconduct committed. The Bank ought to have imposed a minor punishment rather than imposing the major punishment of compulsory retirement. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Bank deserve to be quashed and set aside.
5. Ms.
Dharmishta Raval learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank that the petitioner had committed a serious misconduct under the relevant Regulations of the Bank. She submitted that originally the Bank was proposing to impose the penalty of dismissal but, considering the long years of service, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. She, therefore, requested that the present petition may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It emerges from the record that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with his employer, i.e. the respondent-Bank, whereby, he had rented a premise purchased by him and situated near the Branch where he was serving. The petitioner had purchased the said premise without disclosing the same to the respondent-Bank, which was mandatory under the relevant Regulations of the Bank. The misconduct committed was serious in nature since the petitioner had rented the immovable property to the his employer, i.e. the respondent-Bank and had also not disclosed the factum of such purchase to the Bank. The petitioner had misused his official position for personal gain.
7. Considering the misconduct committed by the petitioner, the punishment imposed appears to be lenient. No contention has been raised challenging the validity of the departmental proceedings and hence, the same is not looked into in the present petition.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top