RADHAKRISHNA SETTY Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL OFFICE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was an officer of Indian Overseas Bank. He was dismissed from service by an order dated 22-2-1980 by the disciplinary Authority, which order has been confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. It is these orders which have brought the petitioner before this Court, aggrieved by the same.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the nature of the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to note a few background facts. They are: petitioner was serving in the respondent-Indian Overseas bank as Manager. While working in Kannalu Branch of the bank, he was served with a charge memo dated 28-3-1987 containing charges of misconduct. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an Inquiry Officer came to be appointed to enquire into the charges of misconduct. Management did not choose to appoint a Presenting Officer. Delinquent brought this aspect of the matter before the Inquiry officer, who overruled this objection and proceeded to conduct the enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report together with the records of the enquiry proceedings to the Disciplinary Authority. That after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer and records of the proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 22-2-1989 dismissing the petitioner from services of the Bank, which order has been affirmed in appeal also.

(3.) SRI P. S. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 6 of the Indian overseas Bank Officers Employees' Discipline and Appeal regulations, 1976, provides that where the Disciplinary authority itself inquires or appoints an Inquiry Officer for holding an enquiry, it may by an order appoint a public servant to be known as the Presenting Officer to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge and the expression 'may' should be read as shall and failure to appoint a 'presenting officer' would vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings,