G V ASWATHANARYANA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER before this Court was a Branch Manger at Jangamakote Branch, Central Bank of india ('bank' for short ). While working in the said branch he was served with a charge memo dated 7/9th August 1982 containing charges of misconduct as a Branch Manger of Jangamakote branch. They relate to the events that took place in the year 1979 and among other things it specified that the petitioner committed gross official misconduct in as much as misused his official position by sanctioning 21 loan applications for a total amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- contrary to the banking procedure, thereby committing gross misconduct within the, meaning of regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of Central Bank of India Officer, Employees' conduct regulations 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation) attracting penalty under Regulation 4 of Conduct Regulations. Petitioner was asked to furnish his explanation to the charge memo within 15 days of the receipt of the charge memo, as the enquiry was proposed to be held against him. For reasons best known to the delinquent officer, no specific written statement of defence was filed. The disciplinary authority had appointed an enquiry officer to inquire into the charges framed in the charge memo and the said enquiry officer on completion of the enquiry proceedings submitted his report together with the records of the enquiry proceedings and other documents to the disciplinary authority. According to the enquiry officer out of five imputations made against the delinquent, two are fully proved, one is partly proved and the other two imputations are not proved. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the enquiry officer and records of the proceedings and after concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer passed an order dated 8. 11. 1984 in terms of Regulation 4 of Conduct Regulations. The penalty imposed is as under:

(2.) PETITIONER challenged the said order before the appellate authority of the Bank as provided under the Conduct Regulations. The appeal came to be dismissed as per annexure N to the petition dated 25. 7. 1985 concurring with the orders of the disciplinary authority. It is these orders which have brought the petitioner before this Court.

(3.) SRI K. Subba Rao Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as usual, strongly and vehemently contends that the orders made by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority is invalid and illegal and in as much and entire proceedings are vitiated for non observation of fair play in action and the rules of natural justice. In support of that contention labors hard to persuade this Court to accept his submissions by taking through the lengthy evidence on record, the orders made by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. This Court should definitely place on record its deep appreciation for the untiring, industrious, and unflagging efforts of the Learned Counsel to exposes the cause of his client. The other grievance made by the Learned Counsel in the present petition touching upon the illegalities in the conduct of the proceedings are: