LAWS(KAR)-2008-10-52

VIJAYA BANK Vs. MOHAN DAS RAMANA SHETTY

Decided On October 03, 2008
VIJAYA BANK Appellant
V/S
MOHAN DAS RAMANA SHETTY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeal is directed against the order dated 9-7-2008 made in Writ Petition No. 21279 of 2002 filed by the respondent herein to quash the proceedings dated 26-11-2001 passed by the 3rd appellant herein viz. the Deputy General Manager, personnel Department (IRD), vijaya Bank, Head Office, where the Disciplinary Authority had in a disciplinary action initiated against the respondent-employee, based on the findings of the enquiry into the charges arrayed against the respondent herein, imposed the following punishments :

(2.) THE respondent-employee appealed against the said proceedings of the Deputy general Manager dated 26-11-2001 on 8-1-2002 and the same was dismissed by order dated 3-4-2002. According to the Disciplinary Authority viz. the 3rd appellant herein, the charges levelled against the respondent are very grave in nature and attracts major penalty. They are related to allowing overdrawings, failure to obtain prior permission for approval from the controlling authorities in all 67 charges. After a full-fledged enquiry, the enquiry officer who inquired into the charges, of course, after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the respondent and following the procedure contemplated under the Regulations, found all 67 charges levelled against him vide charge-sheet dated 16-5-2001 constitutes serious misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3 (I) read with Regulation 24 of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct)Regulations, 1981 which are actionable under Regulation 4 of Vijaya Bank officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal)Regulations, 1981 and the same were proved. It is on this finding the Disciplinary Authority-3rd respondent has opined that the charges proved against the respondent-employee have caused serious financial losses and therefore, it would not be proper to continue the service of the respondent-employee in the Bank. In fact, the respondent also has admitted the misconduct committed by him before the enquiry officer. Accordingly, the penalty of removal from service was imposed by the 3rd respondent and the same was as referred to above confirmed by the Appellate Authority by proceedings dated 3-4-2002. At this context it is pertinent to note that the Appellate Authority in his proceedings dated 3-4-2002 had observed that the Branch Office vide their letter dated 16-10-2000 had informed that the chance of recovery of the alleged losses from the respondent-employee is remote and the relevant portion of the order of the Appellate authority dated 3-4-2002 reads as hereunder :

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the 3rd respondent dated 26-11-2001 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 3-4-2002, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition No. 21279 of 2002 before this Court and the learned single Judge by his order dated 9-7-2008 after hearing both sides, particularly extracting the admission of the charges by the respondent-petitioner himself, held that there is no justification to interfere with the orders impugned. With the risk of repetition we propose to extract the admission of the charges by the respondent himself which reads as hereunder :