JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (hereinafter referred as ‘the Gramin Bank’) and their officers, are represented by the learned senior counsel, Mr. S. Dutta. 2. The matter pertains to a Disciplinary Proceeding (DP) against the petitioner who served as Messenger cum Sweeper, at the Kakopathar Branch of the erstwhile Subansiri Gaonlia Bank (now merged with the Gramin Bank). 3. The primary allegation against the employee related to unauthorized absence from duty since July, 1998 until the charge memo was issued on 8.6.2000 (Annexure-E) and his failure to resume duty, despite notices being served on the absentee employee. Dis-satisfied with the delinquent’s explanation, an inquiry was conducted and it was concluded that the delinquent has abandoned his employment. On that basis, the petitioner was found guilty of in-subordination and disobedience to lawful and reasonable order of superior, negligence of duty and also gross violation of the Banking Staff Regulation. Consequently, the punishment of dismissal from service was ordered by the disciplinary authority, on 1.11.2000 (Annexure-K). 4. The aggrieved employee filed the WP(C) No.7143/2000 and that was disposed of by the High Court on 16.10.2007, by relegating the delinquent to the Appellate Forum, of the Bank. 5. The Board of Directors of the Gramin Bank then decided to conduct a fresh departmental inquiry and in the meantime, the dismissal order was kept in abeyance. The resolution of the Board being relevant, is extracted here-in-below: “……………………. “Resolved that the competent authority in the Bank be and is hereby authorized to cause a fresh departmental enquiry on the original charge sheet issued to Sri Sudip Bhattacharjee by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority of the erstwhile Subansiri Gaonlia Bank.” “Resolved further that, consequent to the initiation of a fresh enquiry the punishment of dismissal imposed on Sudip Bhattacharjee be kept in abeyance for the purpose of holding Disciplinary proceedings, till such time, the fresh enquiry report is placed and decision taken by the Competent Authority.” “Resolved further that the entire process of fresh departmental proceedings and disposal of the same be completed with a period of 90 days” “Resolved further that the period of dismissal of Sudip Bhattacharjee be treated depending on the outcome of the fresh departmental proceedings. …………………….” 6. …………………….” 6. When it was decided to conduct the fresh departmental enquiry, under Regulation 40 of the Assam Gramin Bikash Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation, 2006 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Gramin Bank’s Regulation’), a new enquiry Officer was appointed and although the notices were served upon him, the delinquent did not participate in the inquiry. Recording the delinquent’s want of cooperation, the disciplinary authority then again imposed the penalty of dismissal on 29.7.2009 (page-110), under Regulation 38(II)(b)(vi) of the Gramin Bank’s Regulation. 7. The learned counsel Mr. H. Das submits that since the delinquent was dismissed from service on 1.11.2000, as a former employee, he chose not to participate in the fresh inquiry proceeding. He contends that the delinquent should first be reinstated and only then, he can participate in the departmental inquiry. 8. On the other hand, Mr. S. Dutta, as the learned senior counsel representing the Gramin Bank submits that the Board of Directors had resolved to keep in abeyance the dismissal order to facilitate the fresh departmental enquiry and accordingly the counsel submits that the petitioner should have availed the opportunity to rebut the charges. Moreover, the counsel projects that only personal difficulties was pleaded by the delinquent in his adjournment applications, before the Inquiry Officer and he never raised the plea of being a former employee to seek adjournment of the inquiry proceeding. 9. From the above discussions, it becomes clear that the Board of Directors of the Gramin Bank had decided to conduct a fresh departmental inquiry, with due opportunity to the delinquent. The refusal by the delinquent to participate in the inquiry can only be to his peril. But the challenge to penalization is based primarily on the ex-parte finding. 10. As can be seen, the inquiry had to be conducted ex-parte only because of deliberate refusal by the delinquent to participate in the de novo inquiry. However the learned counsel Mr. H. Das submits that if another opportunity is provided, the delinquent will certainly participate in the inquiry, without any reservation. 11. In response to the above, the Bank’s counsel points out that this is an old pending matter and if a fresh inquiry is to be conducted, the delinquent must cooperate or otherwise he will secure unfair advantage, notwithstanding his deliberate absence, in the de novo inquiry proceeding. 12. 11. In response to the above, the Bank’s counsel points out that this is an old pending matter and if a fresh inquiry is to be conducted, the delinquent must cooperate or otherwise he will secure unfair advantage, notwithstanding his deliberate absence, in the de novo inquiry proceeding. 12. Having considered the above, only for facilitating another opportunity to the delinquent in furtherance of the cause of justice, departmental inquiry on the charges against the delinquent staff is ordered to be conducted afresh by the Gramin Bank. If on this occasion, the petitioner avoids the inquiry, he shall do so at his own risk. In other words, the presence and participation on due dates of the inquiry is made mandatory for the delinquent or otherwise, he shall suffer the consequences. The punishment of the impugned dismissal imposed on 29.7.2009 (page-110), is made subject to the outcome of the fresh inquiry and the resultant decision of the disciplinary authority. It is ordered accordingly. 13. With the above order, the case stands disposed of. No cost.