ANDHRA BANK CENTRAL OFFICE Vs. M L GOPICHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset we are compelled to state that even though this is not at all a fit case for the Bank to pursue this litigation, the appellant-Bank, without application of mind, without proper legal advice and unconcerning about the wastage of public money and valuable time of the officers, has come up in this appeal questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned single Judge who found that the Bank kept the respondent under suspension for nearly eight and half years during which period only four hearings for enquiry had been conducted and the penalty imposed is nothing more than censure. This case is a classic example as to how the officers at the helm of affairs are least bothered in the wastage of public money. If this kind of litigations are encouraged, the entire banking finance will have to be spent exclusively that not only the appellant-Bank officers but all others will open their eyes hereinafter before prosecuting litigations in Courts so as to reduce the unwanted and unnecessary burden on the exchequer.

(2.) IN the very first ground of appeal it is admitted that no loss had been caused to the Bank on account of the alleged misconduct on the part of the respondent. It is further stated that the charges were all serious in nature, which have been admitted by the respondent. If that be the position, the imposition, of mere censure on the respondent belies and throws away the statements made in the first ground of appeal.

(3.) A perusal of the order of the learned single Judge reveals that even though the charge-sheet was issued to the respondent on august 8, 1988, the enquiry was not conducted till August 23, 1993. Even the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer did not hold the respondent guilty of the charges. Disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary Authority censured the respondent. But, the period of suspension has been treated in a very peculiar manner. Added to that, the increments during the period of suspension have been sanctioned notionally. The suspension period has been ordered to be reckoned as active i service only for the purpose of pension. The way i in which the period of suspension has been treated and the monetary loss caused to the respondent would all clearly indicate that the Disciplinary authority has no knowledge of service rules applicable to its officers and staff.