KRISHNASWAMY Vs. CAUVERY GRAMEENA BANK MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is posted in preliminary hearing 'b' group. By consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) WHILE working as a clerk in the cauvery grameena bank, mysore, petitioner was served with a charge-memo dated 13-11-1992. In that, there were 10 charges against the petitioner. All these charges pertain to misappropriation of funds of the bank. This charge-memo had been replied by the petitioner denying the allegations made in the charge-memo. the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, had appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made in the charge memo. The enquiry officer after holding a detailed enquiry in accordance with the rules of natural justice, had submitted his report and the findings thereof to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 2-7-1993. By the said Order, he has imposed a penalty of removal from service in terms of regulation 30 (l) (e) of the cauvery grameena bank staff service regulations, 1980. Aggrieved by that Order, petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the service regulations. The appellate authority by its order dated 2-11-1993 had rejected the appeal and then has confirmed the orders made by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by these orders, petitioner is before this court.

(3.) SRI appanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends before this court that the respondent-authorities had not supplied the copies of the documents on which they placed reliance during the enquiry proceedings. In that view of the matter, he submits that the proceedings are vitiated. Apart from that, the learned counsel would submit that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is highly disproportionate to the charges/misconduct alleged in the charge-memo. further, the learned counsel would submit that since the bank has recovered the entire amounts from the petitioner and the other parties concerned, the bank has not suffered any monetary loss and in that view of the matter, the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority requires to be modified by this court.