ARUN KUMA ALVA Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has called in question the order dated September 19, 1998 dismissing him from service and the order dated June 11, 1999 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of dismissal.

(2.) IN the year 1971, the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the establishment of the respondent-Bank. From time to time the petitioner was promoted and in the year 1993, he was promoted to Middle Management Grade scale III. Between 1989 and 1993 the petitioner was working as Manager at West of Chord road Branch, Bangalore. In the year 1994 the respondent-Bank appointed an Investigating officer to investigate the irregularities committed by the petitioner and others between 1989 to 1992 at West of Chord Road Branch. The Investigating Officer submitted his report on August 2, 1994 to the Disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice on December 24, 1994 to the petitioner. On August 18, 1995, the petitioner submitted his reply. The Disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, issued a charge-sheet on April 24, 1997. The charges levelled against the petitioner in brief reads as under:

(3.) SRI Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Narayana Bhat, learned Counsel for petitioner contend, that there is a delay of seven years in issuing the charge-sheet and on this ground alone, enquiry proceedings are vitiated. The respondent-Bank has not furnished the list of documents and witnesses, copies of documents and copies of statements of witnesses at the time of issue of charge-sheet. The respondent-Bank also refused to permit the petitioner to verify the original records. This has resulted in denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his defence in the enquiry. It is contended, that the charges levelled against the petitioner are vague, they are not specific and this has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. It is further contended, that the petitioner and seven others were issued with charge-sheets on identical charges. The respondent-Bank, instead of holding a joint enquiry against the petitioner and seven other officers, held separate enquiries in contravention of Regulation 10 of the Vijaya Bank Officer employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1981 (for short, 'the Regulations' ). The findings of the enquiry Officer are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Lastly, it is contended, that the petitioner is victimised by the respondent-Bank.