JUDGMENT Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.
1. A number of prayers have been made in this writ petition but having gone through the pleadings of the parties and heard Sri K. P. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri V. R. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, we find that the real question is as to whether the memorandum, as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ petition, which reads as follows should be quashed by us or not :
"This has reference to the explanation dated 28.12.1993 submitted by Shri S. P. Mishra in reply to memorandum No. CO:IRD:9034/93 dated 20.12.93.
The aforesaid explanation dated 28.12.93 submitted by Shri Mishra is not found satisfactory and convincing. I therefore, hold Sri Mishra guilty of the following charges for the reasons enumerated in memorandum No. CO:IRD: 9034/93 dated 20.12.93 :
1. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence.
Looking to the nature and gravity of the misconduct/ allegations levelled and proved against. Shri S. P. Mishra as also huge outstanding in the relevant accounts, 1 am of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met by imposing upon him the penalty of reduction of his pay by one stage in the time scale of pay. Accordingly, by virtue of the powers vested in me in terms of Regulation 7 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. 1976, I hereby pass the following order :
ORDER "The penalty of reduction of his pay by one stage in the time scale of pay applicable to him be and is hereby Imposed upon Shri S. P. Mishra.
Sd./-
Disciplinary Authority"
2. The main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has completely exonerated of the charges framed against him but without recording any reasons whatsoever as to why the Disciplinary Authority is differing from his findings, it has proceeded to pass the order Impugned aforementioned.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, after some arguments, very fairly concedes that true it is that the Disciplinary Authority had not recorded any reason as to why it is differing from the report of the Enquiry Officer but having regard to the entire facts and circumstances explained in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of discretionary relief prayed for by him from his Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Having gone through the relevant pleading and appreciated the submissions made by both learned counsel, we are of the view that since the Disciplinary Authority has not recorded any reason for differing from the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer exonerating him of the charges, and had proceeded to impose the penalty of reduction of his pay by one stage in the time scale of pay applicable to him, its validity cannot be sustained.
5. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is held to be Illegal and is quashed. As a necessary corollary the order passed by the appellate authority as contained in Annexure-17 is also quashed.
6. It is clarified that it will be open for the Disciplinary Authority concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
7. In view of the fair stand taken by Sri V. R. Agrawal learned counsel for the respondents, we make no order as to cost.
8. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
9. The office is directed to handover a copy of this order within one week to Sri V. R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents for its communication to and follow up action by the respondents concerned.