M. RAMACHANDRAPPA AND ORS. Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner that he has joined the services of Respondent bank as a clerk in the year 1972. He has maintained a blemishless service ever since then, except for one instance of penalty imposed on him. When he was eligible to participate in the promotion process, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry was held and he was imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. On appeal before the Board of Directors, he was re -instated. However, the period between the date of dismissal and date of retirement was not considered for any purpose whatsoever. Penalty of dismissal was substituted by a penalty of stoppage of four increments. The bank refused the seniority of the petitioner by excluding the period of suspension also. It affected his chance of promotion. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Petition No. 16573/1991 was filed seeking a direction to the bank to promote him. By the order dated 2.4.1998 the petition was allowed. The Bank challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 3639/1998 which was dismissed on 3.6.1999. Thereafter, he was promoted as an officer in Junior Management Grade Scale -I with retrospective effect from 16.3.1991. The petitioner was consistently being rated as superior and excellent based on the services rendered by him. He was also granted milestone award for having completed 25 years of meritorious service to the bank. He was due for promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale -II which consists of written test, marks for performance based on rating secured in the ongoing performance appraisal system and interview. Even though he had a higher standard, he was denied the promotion deliberately. The appeal filed was also rejected.

(2.) FROM 21st August 2002 to 12th August 2003 the petitioner was working as Manager at Hallikhed(B) branch. On 12.8.2003 he was relieved on transfer to Sedam. After his transfer certain bogus complaints were filed against him when he was working as a manger at the Hallikhed branch. He was called upon to submit his reply. He furnished his reply. Based on same, an investigation was ordered. The report was submitted to the bank. Based on the same, articles of charges were issued on 2.12.2004. He gave his reply. An enquiry officer was appointed. Six persons who had given complaints against the petitioner were arrayed as witnesses. However, only two of them appeared before the enquiry officer. They did not support the case of the bank. The Investigating officer was also examined. He has narrated the manner in which he has conducted his investigation and the conduct of the petitioner. Thereafter the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved. A second show cause notice was issued. Petitioner gave his representation. He was imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement from service. He filed an appeal which was dismissed. Hence, he filed the instant Writ Petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the disciplinary, appellate authority and sought for reinstatement with full arrears of salary and consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, he died. His L.Rs. were brought on record.

(3.) ON the other hand Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, the learned counsel for the respondent bank defends the impugned order by relying by his statement of objections. He contends that there is no error committed by the Enquiry officer or the Disciplinary Authority in holding that the charges have been proved. That the investigating officer has submitted his detailed report based on the allegations against the petitioner. That the report would clearly show the manner in which the petitioner has committed the acts. His conduct is unbecoming of an officer of the bank. That only because two witnesses have not supported the bank is not a reason to hold that the findings are erroneous. The findings of the investigating officer is proper. Hence he pleads that the Writ Petition requires to be rejected.