SYNDICATE BANK A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 REP. BY SRI. B. PRAMOD GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL) SYNDICATE BANK INDUSTRIAL RELATION DIVISION Vs. SRI B. GANESH PAI S/O LATE SRI SRIDHAR PAI@

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant -Bank is in this intra-Court appeal assailing the order dated 07.12.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2658/2002(S -DE). By the said order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and quashed the order dated 25.05.2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the Appellant -Bank, which was impugned at Annexure -X to the petition. The Disciplinary Authority by the said order dated 25 05.2001 had dismissed the Respondent herein from the services of the Appellant -Bank.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the Respondent herein who had joined the services of the Appellant -Bank as a Clerk in the year 1969 had progressed and was working as a Senior Manager in the Middle Management Grade Scale -Ill from 1993 onwards. In the year 1999, he was posted as the Branch Manager of Dana Bunder Branch, Mumbai. While discharging his duties as the Branch Manager, he was issued a charge sheet and statement of imputations of misconduct alleging that during the period between 31.05.1999 and 01.03.2000. the Respondent had unduly accommodated M/s Sonu Steels to the extent of Rs. 9.72 crores and M/s Maurthi Steels to the extent of Rs. 3.63 crores by discounting instruments relating to non -genuine trade transactions under MDP, beyond sanctioning power delegated to the Respondent. It was further alleged that while seeking approval, the Respondent had suppressed the fact of adjusting returned CD Ds by fresh discounting of cheques and had thereby allowed the party to indulge in kite flying operations.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant while assailing the order of the learned Single Judge would contend that the finding to the effect that the inquiry is vitiated since the documents were not furnished is not sustainable. It is contended that the Inquiry Officer after considering the request of the delinquent had come to the conclusion that the said documents were either not relevant or the same were not available. In any event, the said documents were not relied on in the inquiry and the position is the same in respect of the preliminary investigation report. Mere infraction of the rules of procedure or non -furnishing of documents which are not relevant will not vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice is shown to have been caused. It is also contended that the delinquent having accepted the ruling of the Inquiry Officer and having not made any grievance with regard to the same cannot thereafter complain about non -furnishing of the documents. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Krishna Chandra Tandon Vs. The Union of India (UOI), AIR 1974 SC 1589 . Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. etc. Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074 , State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 AD SC 349 , Syndicate Bank and Others Vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, AIR 2006 SC 3542 and Bank of India and Others Vs. T. Jogram, AIR 2007 SC 2793 . Even on merits, it was contended that the Inquiry Officer after analysing the evidence available before him has rendered a finding of fact with regard the delinquent having indulged in the misconduct whereby he had exceed his powers and also the ratification was obtained by suppressing relevant materials. It is contended that when such serious charges have been proved, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority were justified and when there is no error in the decision making process, the decision itself cannot be faulted unless it shocks the conscience.