DAYANANDA KAMATH K Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has interfered with the punishment of dismissal and substituted the punishment of Compulsory retirement. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner had joined the Bank as a Probationary Officer and he was confirmed in service after a period of two years. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Manager after 15 years of service. Thereafter he was transferred to the Gurgaon Branch of the respondent - Bank to head the Forex Department. According to the petitioner he was unable to provide what was called DB Package Software and SWIFT facility for international financial transactions communication facility, which according to the petitioner was a basic requirement for a Forex Business to commence for more than one year. The Foreign Exchange Department in the Gurgaon Branch was called "Swift Alliance Access Software". The petitioner was alone required to handle the Forex business at the said branch since the Bank had failed to provide two other employees, who were required to operate the system and the risks involved were serious, which was brought to the notice of the Bank immediately by the petitioner. His apprehension was that even a minor error in the operation of the SWIFT could amount to huge losses running into crores of rupees. He made a representation to the Bank to post two Forex Officers to work in the Foreign Exchange Section. His request was not acceded to. When he did not get the required support, he applied for a leave of 335 days on loss of salary. He gave three reasons namely, (i) to prepare for alternative career; (ii) that there was no recognition for his good work; and (iii) the risky working environment; which prompted him to apply for leave. On consideration of the said application, it was rejected. He was directed to report to duty. But he did not report to duty. He remained absent from 02.05.2005 without prior sanction of leave from the competent authority. Therefore, he was served with a charge sheet alleging three grounds of misconduct (i) Unauthorised absence; (ii) Forwarding E-mails mentioning his unsolicited views and comments, with a view to carry out the exaggerated and unwarranted propaganda about network link failures in the Bank; (iii) the communication was sent directly to the higher authorities without sending them through proper channel. The petitioner gave his reply and a Domestic Enquiry was conducted. After the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that charges 1 and 3 are proved and charge No. 2 was partly proved. The disciplinary authority exonerated the petitioner in respect of second charge completely and accepted the finding of the enquiry officer on charges 1 and 3 and imposed the penalty of dismissal. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred a writ petition without preferring statutory appeal. Thereafter, he filed an appeal which also came to be dismissed.

(3.) The learned Single Judge on careful consideration of the case of the petitioner held that there is no provision for the petitioner to go on leave for the entire period at one point of time and that his representations were made directly to the higher authorities, which is contrary to the regulations. At the same time, the learned Single Judge appreciated the apprehension of the petitioner and the reason for not working in Gurgaon Branch and was of the view that even though the misconduct is proved, the punishment of dismissal was not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved. Therefore, he set-aside the order of removal and he was of the view that as the petitioner has put in 26 years of service, it is appropriate that he be given a golden hand shake and provided with little relief that he may be entitled and therefore substituted the punishment of removal with compulsory retirement from 02.05.2005 and the Bank was required to work out the benefits that was available for him. To that extent, the writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.