M R NAGARAJAN Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a Disciplinary Enquiry involving inter alia the charge of reckless lending of the Bank funds to the unscrupulous borrowers and of negligently compromising securities for the repayment, the Appellant a Bank Officer was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. His Departmental Appeal against the same having failed, he moved the Writ Court in W.P.No.25440/2009 (S-DE) which came to be dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court vide order dtd. 24/3/2015. This Appeal is directed against the said order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently argues that: relevant copies of documents, including a copy of the Investigation Report were not furnished to the Appellant despite demand and that has disabled him from taking up effective defence; the Respondent-Bank could not have claimed privilege for denying the documents; Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to see that there was no evidentiary material enough to hold the charges proved; there is a specific finding in the Enquiry Report that almost entire amount of loan has been recovered and the loan accounts have been closed; while awarding punishment, relevant factors such as, spotless long service, earning of promotion and encomia have not been considered and the extreme punishment of dismissal shocks the conscience of any reasonable person. Lastly, he seeks to falter the impugned order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that after hearing on 13/8/2013, he had reserved the matter and pronounced the judgement only 24/3/2015.

(3.) Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondents makes submission with equal vehemence resisting the Appeal, supporting the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. He contends that the scope of intra- Court Appeal is very limited; findings of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and accepted by the Appellate Authority cannot be examined by the Writ Court; if there is substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice, no grievance can be made by pointing out some defects. Lastly, what punishment should be awarded to the delinquent employee pertains to the domain of employer and therefore, Courts cannot substitute the punishment awarded by the competent authority, with its own views. So contending he seeks dismissal of the Appeal. He banks upon certain Rulings: