WP(C) 2321/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-17 order dated 23.8.2002, by which, purs uant to a departmental proceeding, he has been discharged from service with supe rannuation benefit. The petitioner was transferred from Sualkuchi Branch of the respondent Bank to Imphal by order dated 18.3.1998 and he was also released from Sualkuchi Branch enabling him to join at Imphal. However, the petitioner did no t carry out the transfer order and instead filed a Civil Suit being T.S. No. 159 /1998, which was dismissed on 15.3.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was also disposed of on 21.1.2006 by which the matter was r emanded back for re-trial as indicated in the order. Be that as it may, througho ut the proceeding, there was no stay order in respect of the impugned transfer o rder. Repeated requests of the respondent Bank to carry out the transfer order d id not yield any result and the petitioner all along flouted the transfer order on the ground of pendency of the suit. In view of the above, the respondent Bank issued the charge sheet dated 17/19.11 .2001 leveling the following charge. The explanation dated 5.11.2001 submitted by Shri Joy Kanta Uzir, Armed Guard i n reply to Bank’s Memo No. RO:GUWA:PRS:01-02:1894 dated 19.10.2001 has been foun d unsatisfactory and it has been decided to hold a Departmental Enquiry on the f ollowing charges: 1. Shri Uzir’s services were transferred in the same capacity from Sualkuchi Bra nch to Imphal Branch vide Regional Office’s letter No. RO:GAU:PRS:97-98:2951 dat ed 18.3.1998 and he was relieved from Sualkuchi Branch o 19.3.1998 to report at Imphal Branch immediately vide their letter No. SUALKU:PRS:97-98:330 dated 19.3. 1998. But Shri Uzir did not report at our Imphal Branch & remained absent contin uously since 19.3.1998 unauthorisedly and put the branch in a difficult situatio n. Shri Uzir was advised repeatedly to join at our Imphal Branch vide our letter s No. (i) RO:GAU:PRS:00-01:452 dt. 19.6.2K (ii) RO:GAU:PRS:2000-2001:1368 dt. 14 .10.2K & final Notice No. RO:GUWA:PRS:01-02:1429 dated 30.08.2001 but he never r eported. Thus he remained unauthorisedly absent continuously for a period exceed ing 30 (thirty) days. This act of omission & commission on his part if proved, would amount to GROSS M ISCODNUCT under Chapter XIX of Bipartite Settlements amended up-to-date. Although the petitioner was given all reasonable opportunity to defend his case, he did not respond to the enquiry proceeding and made his position clear that h e would not participate in the enquiry proceeding. Consequently, the enquiry was held exparte and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 9.1.2002 holdin g the petitioner guilty of the charge. Thereafter the Bank authority afforded the petitioner opportunity of making repr esentation against the enquiry report, to which only reply of the petitioner was that the pendency of the aforesaid suit would debar the Bank authority to pass any order. Situated thus, the disciplinary authority of the Bank passed the impu gned order discharging the petitioner from service with superannuation benefit. Thus, the Bank dealt with the matter leniently inasmuch as while discharging the petitioner from service provided him with superannuation benefit. The aforesaid facts are not at all in dispute, rather admitted by the petitioner . As has been held by the Apex Court in (Channabasappa Basappa Happali Vs. State of Mysore) reported in AIR 1972 SC 32, admission of fact indicated in the charg e amounts to admission of guilt. The petitioner having not participated in the e nquiry proceeding only on the ground of pendency of the civil suit, although the re was no injunction order operating in his favour cannot take the plea that the respondent Bank could not have initiate departmental proceeding. It will be per tinent to mention here that the petitioner was holding the post of Armed Guard a nd thus could not have acted in indisciplined manner. For all the aforesaid reason, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed.