SUGUNASUDARAM A M Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as an Officer in junior Management Grade Scale I in the respondent Syndicate Bank. While he was working in that capacity in the Bellary Branch of the respondent Bank, he was served with a charge memo dated March 14, 1991. The charges relate to some of the omissions and commissions said to have been committed by the petitioner while he was working at kuniamuthur and Tirupur Branch. There are six charges against the petitioner. The charge memo was replied by the petitioner by his reply letter dated May 18,1991. In that, he has totally denied the assertions and the allegations made in the charge memo. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, had appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made in the charge memo by his order dated August 20, 1991. Before the enquiry officer, the management had examined the Investigating officer, who had conducted a preliminary investigation, and had submitted a preliminary enquiry report to the management of the respondent Bank, which is the foundation for preparing and serving the charge memo on the petitioner. Through him, they had also got marked several documents in support of their allegations in the charge memo. The delinquent employee officer had examined himself but had not examined any other witness in support of his case. The Enquiry Officer after completion of the enquiry proceedings and on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, is of the view that charge Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 are partly proved. Charge No. 3 is not proved and charge No. 5 is proved. With these findings, he submits his report and records of the enquiry proceedings to the disciplinary authority. As required under the Regulations, a notice was sent to the employee officer along with the report by the disciplinary authority, inter alia, directing him to show cause why the findings of the enquiry officer should not be accepted and major penalty should not be imposed. After receipt of the notice and the report of the enquiry officer, petitioner filed his detailed reply by his reply letter dated October 29, 1992. In that, he states that the enquiry officer has not conducted the enquiry proceedings in accordance with law and further points out the procedural irregularities committed by the enquiry officer during the inquiry proceedings and further points out various discrepancies and unreasonable assumptions of the enquiry officer in the report, while finding him guilty of several charges alleged against him in the charge memo. The disciplinary authority as usual proceeds to confirm the findings of the enquiry officer and then frames the impugned order dated November 17, 1992. In that, he imposes a major penalty of dismissal against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the delinquent officer goes through the formality of filing the appeal, may be knowing the result of such appeal on the date of the institution of appeal itself. Here, I should definitely confess, till today, I have not come across one order, where the appellate authorities have taken a decision contrary to the decision of disciplinary authority. Filing of the appeals seems to be only a religious ritual before approaching this Court, which in my opinion, is not serving the cause, the purpose and the object for which an appellate forum is created. The appellate forum is provided under the statute with a specific purpose and object. Firstly, they are authorised to exercise quasi judicial functions and secondly, they are empowered to decide both questions of fact and law. But invariably, the appellate authorities seem to think that the appellate forum is created under the statutes/rules/regulations only to formally bless the orders of disciplinary authority. This, in my opinion, is a very sorry state of affairs. Be that as it may.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri P. S. Rajagopal, has raised six issues for consideration and decision of this court. They are as under:

(3.) WHILE elaborating on issue No. 1, the learned counsel firstly points out the request made by the charge sheeted officer before the disciplinary authority for the assistance of one mr. M. U. Pai, who was an employee officer working at Hyderabad Branch of the respondent Bank. According to the learned counsel, the respondent Bank ought to have permitted the petitioner to engage the services of Mr. M. U. Pai to properly defend him in the enquiry proceedings. Since that has not been done, according to the learned counsel, the proceedings are vitiated since they are opposed to the rules of natural justice. In support of that submission the learned counsel relies upon regulation 6 (7) of the Syndicate Bank Officer employees' (Discipline and Appeal)Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'regulations, 1976')