RAVINDRANATH H R Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Bank on August 13, 1973 as a stenographer. He came to be promoted as an officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I wef September 13, 1978. From October 30, 1992, the petitioner was functioning as manager at Lachyan Branch of the respondent bank While working in the said Branch, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated august 25, 1993 alleging that he demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from five persons namely (1) Sharanappa S. Sambhaji, (2) Madeva R. Badigara, (3) Dharmaraya Peerappa mujagond, (4) Siddappa Hanumantha Harjan and (5) Iyagand Yeshwant Sindgi, and when they did not pay, the petitioner refused to release the loan. The further allegation was he released loans to three persons namely (1)Shivappa Gowda Iranagonda Patil, (2)Mahadeva Siddappa Talakere and (3)Naganatha Shankarappa Patel, after accepting the bribe from them. Annexure- A is the charge-sheet The petitioner submitted a defence statement on September 29, 1993 denying the charges and also alleging mala fide against the management as per Annexure- B. Not being satisfied with the defense of the petitioner, an enquiry was initiated and an enquiry Officer was appointed. Parties adduced evidence. The Enquiry Officer, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties submitted a report dated May 24, 1998 holding that the charges i against the petitioner are not proved by giving detailed reasons. Annexure-E is the copy of the said enquiry report. The Disciplinary authority issued a communication dated August 24, 1998 as per Annexure-G enclosing a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and pointing out the grounds on which he disagrees with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him and called upon the petitioner to submit his submissions if any as per annexure-G. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation as per Annexure-H dated September 29, 1998, pointing out why he should not disagree with the finding of the enquiry Officer Thereafter, the Disciplinary authority proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure-J rejecting the contention of the petitioner as not convincing and holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly punishment was imposed compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service Aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal to the Appellate Authority as per Annexure-K on November 27, 1998 urging several grounds. The appellate authority considering the entire record and on careful evaluation of the case, held that there is no extenuating factors warranting interference with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly confirmed the penalty imposed by an order dated January 7, 1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner sri P. S. Rajagopal, contended that the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary authority is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as, even before hearing the petitioner, on the second show cause notice, the disciplinary Authority has made up his mind to hold that the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Therefore, there is no necessity to consider other grounds urged for quashing the impugned order.

(3.) PER contra (sic) the learned senior counsel Shri S. S. Ramdas, appearing for the respondent Bank contended that, when the disciplinary Authority disagrees with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the law requires the delinquent employee should be given a second show cause notice pointing out the grounds on which the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the finding of the Enquiry officer and once such requirement is complied with, as in this case, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Though the contents in the second show cause notice is not happily worded, the very fact that an opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause shows that the Disciplinary Authority had kept his mind open and after considering the objections filed by the petitioner, as he found the same to be without any substance, he has rejected those objections and has held the charges are proved. Even if there is any flaw in the order passed by the Disciplinary authority, the entire matter was before the appellate authority, who after considering the entire material on record and after referring to the objections raised by the petitioner, has, by a considered order, rejected those objections and has affirmed the finding of the Disciplinary authority and therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned orders are vitiated for not following the principles of natural justice.