M. KRISHNA MUKRI Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as Executive Grade Scale - IV at Syndicate Bank is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28-3-2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 23-11-2012 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 19-6-2013 passed by the Reviewing Authority and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-bank to forthwith pay petitioner arrears of salary till the date of his superannuation and settle all his terminal benefits after the date of superannuation as if the impugned order was never in existence, including payment of interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date the amounts became due till the date of payment.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed under the respondent-bank as a clerk on 6-5-1974 and he was promoted to Junior Management Grade Scale-I with effect from 1980 and further promoted to the cadre of Officer in Middle Management Grade Scale-II in the year 1993. Again the petitioner was promoted to Scale-III in the year 1999 and finally promoted as an Executive Grade Scale-IV in the year 2006. On certain allegations made against the petitioner, the petitioner was kept under suspension. On 8-5-2010 there was contemplation of disciplinary proceedings on the allegation that he had abused his official position and extended loans to several parties. Thereafter the petitioner gave representation on 4-8-2010 seeking revocation of the order of suspension contending that he had extended loans within the parameters prescribed under the credit policy and had extended loans strictly in terms of Synd Jaikisan Scheme and that he had worked in the institution for the last 36 years blemish less. On 26-11-2010, the petitioner made representation seeking revocation of the order of suspension in the light of the fact that no charge-sheet was issued against him despite six months having lapsed after the order of suspension.

(3.) The Competent Authority by an order dated 29-11-2010, rejected the representation and directed that the order of suspension be continued until further orders. However no charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner as on the date. It is further contended that after fourteen months the petitioner was placed under suspension, a copy of the charge-sheet dated 16-6-2011 was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner, on receipt of the charge-sheet, by his reply dated 30-6-2011, denied the allegations in toto and stated that he would like to make his defence.