GOPAL SHETTY M Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was an officer of respondent-Syndicate Bank (the Bank for the short ). For the alleged acts of misconduct said to have been committed by him while as an officer of the respondent Bank, he was served with a charge memo dated December 21, 1998. The Articles of charge read as under. "article OF CHARGE" that you were working as Manager of sakleshpur Branch from June 23, 1988 to october 27, 1989 and prior to that as Asst. Manager at Avenue Road, Bangalore and while working in your position as such on april 28, 1988, you executed a written agreement dated April 28, 1988 for sale of the property mortgaged to the Bank agreeing to execute registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 1,27,750/- in favour of sri Sanjeeva Sapalinga and received from him rs. 77,750/- on April 28, 1988 and rs. 50,000/- on November 4, 1988 before obtaining permission from the Bank for selling the property and you failed to remit the sale proceeds towards the Housing Loan account availed by you from the Bank. By your above acts, you failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity and honesty and exhibited conduct unbecoming of the status of the Bank Officer and thus contravened Regulation No 3 (1) read with regulation 24 of Syndicate Bank Officers employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. "

(2.) AFTER receipt of the charge memo, by his reply letter dated February 6, 1999 filed before the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank, petitioner denied the charges and also had offered his explanation. In that, he had stated that the Bank by its General manager (Credit), had permitted him to substitute the security for housing loan by disposing of the existing house property and therefore, he had entered into an agreement with the prospective purchaser to sell the property, and the sale is not yet completed. Therefore, he has not committed any acts of misconduct as alleged in the charge memo. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank had appointed one Sri koragappa as enquiry officer to conduct enquiry and to submit his report on the charges alleged in the charge memo and the same was informed to the delinquent official by their letter dated March 20, 1999.

(3.) THE enquiry officer had fixed the date of enquiry on April 29, 1999 and the same was intimated to the petitioner by a notice of enquiry dated April 10, 1999. In response to the said notice, petitioner by his letter dated April 25, 1999 had requested the enquiry officer to postpone the enquiry proceedings on the ground he has suffered a head injury in a road accident and that the Doctor has advised him not to undertake journey upto May 19, 1999. In support of this claim, he had also enclosed a photocopy of the medical certificate issued by gurukripa Nursing Home, Karwar. The letter is acknowledged by the enquiry officer and without doubting the correctness or otherwise of the medical certificate produced, proceeds with the enquiry on April 29, 1999, and while doing so observes-