FEDERATION OF CANARA BANK EMPLOYEES Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner is a Trade Union and second petitioner is an employee of Canara Bank. They have filed this writ petition seeking to quash annexure L dated January 31, 1994 by which penalty of censure was imposed on the 2nd respondent and Annexure M dated February 21, 1994 by which the 2nd petitioner was called upon to reimburse Rs. 23,000-00 along with interest. The order of imposing penalty of censure was preceded by a departmental enquiry on the charge of shortage of money.

(2.) A detailed statement of objections is filed on behalf of the Bank justifying the impugned orders. Mr. T. R. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank sought to justify the impugned orders. According to him, since the other Clerk has admitted the loss of money and has paid the same, the petitioner is guilty of the charge. He further submits that since opportunity was given to the petitioner, this Court shall not interfere with the impugned orders.

(3.) PERUSED the impugned orders and the enquiry records. The mam ground of attack is that the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the statement of co-delinquent who was not examined in the enquiry proceedings and consequently, the petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine him. A perusal of the enquiry report at Annexure H reveals that two witnesses had been examined on behalf of the management. The statement of one G. G. Shenoy had been relied upon without examining him and without tendering him for cross-examination. Hence, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are vitiated. The Disciplinary Authority has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. Hence the impugned order at annexure L passed by him is bad in law.