H SURENDRA SHETTY Vs. VIJAYA BANK BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOMESTIC enquiries into the charges of misconduct of employees do not always inspire any great confidence in their impartiality because employer virtually becomes a Judge in his own cause by appointing his nominee as the enquiry officer. The eroding faith in the domestic enquiry will vanish altogether, if an employer goes on repeating enquiries till the ultimate result satisfies him in the style of repeating the mixture till the patient is dead. It is therefore necessary to visit even domestic enquiries with an increasing content of fairness and insulating as far as possible their perfunctoriness.

(2.) IT is triate that a person cannot be vexed twice for the same cause. An employee officer against whom disciplinary proceedings had been initiated on a particular charge as a result of which a punishment of 'warning' is also awarded by the employer, cannot subsequently charge-sheet him for the. same offence is the theme of this writ petition.

(3.) PETITIONER is employed as Senior Branch Manager of respondent-Vijaya Bank. He worked as Branch Manager at respondent-Banner-ghatta Branch, Bangalore, during 30-5-1986 to 1-6-1987, Gandhi Bazaar branch, Bangalore, during 1-6-1987 to 9-5-1992, Noida Branch, Delhi, during 22-5-1993 to 25-4-1998 and now as Senior Branch Manager at l. H. H. Road, Mangalore Branch. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner impugns the domestic enquiry proceedings, which is sought to be held against him on the basis of the charges contained in the charge memo bearing reference No. BMR:irs:cs:036:99-2000, dated 16-12-1999. Secondly, for a direction to the respondent-Bank to refrain from proceeding with the matter in pursuance of the charge memo and lastly, to issue writ to quash the orders made by the Disciplinary Authority in appointing the enquiry and presenting officer to inquire into the charges contained in the charge memo dated 16-12-1999.