M R ACHAR Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.7.1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 27?10?1999, passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority and also the order dated 11?5?2000 passed by the Revisional Authority in so far as it is adverse to the interest of the petitioner and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the services of respondent?bank in the year 1972 as a clerk. In the year 1998, the petitioner was working in the respondent?bank in its branch office situated at Car Street Udupi. THE petitioner is an active member of the recognised Workmen Trade Union in the respondent?bank. During the year 1998, the petitioner was elected as Deputy General Secretary of the Trade Union. During the year 1998, there were several demands raised by the Trade Union pending consideration by the respondent?bank. Since the respondent bank failed to react to the demands of the union, the Trade Union resolved to agitate against the bank pressing their demands. Consequently, on 19?11?1998, after the office hours, the Trade Union held a demonstration in front of the head office of the respondent bank at Manipal. THE respondent?bank reacted to this agitation by issuing charge sheets to 23 workmen including the petitioner alleging that they have indulged in shouting derogatory/indecent/defamatory/ personally abusive inhuman slogans against the Chairman and the Managing Director and other executives of the bank. THE petitioner submitted his reply on 10? 12?1998 denying the charge leveled against him. THE Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner initiated disciplinary enquiry proceedings. THE enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved. THE Disciplinary Authority by accepting the report of the enquiry officer passed the impugned order of penalty dismissing the petitioner from service. THE Appellate Authority by the order-dated 27?10?1999 confirmed the order of penalty. Subsequently, the Revisional authority modified the order of penalty by reducing the basic pay by two stages for a period of eight years, denied back wages and consequential benefits on reinstatement. THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the penalty levied by the Revisional Authority, is before this Court.

(3.) HEARD arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. The following questions will arise for my considerations: 1. Whether the writ petition is liable tip be rejected on the ground that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act? 2. Whether the misconduct committed by the petitioner is in contravention of clause 19.5(i) of the bipartite settlement? 3. Whether the impugned order of penalty is disproportionate to the nature of charges leveled against the petitioner and that the same is discriminatory and victimisation? On Question No. 1