VEERANNA E N Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. M. N. Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised only two contentions i. e. , noncompliance of the mandatory Regulations 6 (15) and 6 (17) of the indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' conduct and Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 (for short 'regulations' ). The main thrust of his argument is that there is a clear violation of the Regulations inasmuch as Regulation 6 (17) has not been scrupulously followed.

(2.) SMT. K. Subha Ananthi, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that there is no violation of Regulation 6 (17) of the regulations inasmuch as an opportunity was given to the petitioner and he has filed his written brief, which would be a sufficient compliance of Regulation 6 (17) of the regulations, which would deal with the major penalties.

(3.) WHETHER indeed Regulation 6 (17) of the regulations has been scrupulously followed or not as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, few facts are required to be noticed: the petitioner joined the services of the respondent - Bank as a probationary officer on february 1, 1978. The case of the petitioner is that his integrity, honesty and intelligence were recognized and he was termed as an Excellent performer. He was promoted as an Officer in the middle Management services, he was given a foreign posting for a period of three years from 1990. But however, at the relevant point of time, he was working as a Branch Manager of the kumara Park Branch of the Bank at Bangalore. Suffice it to say that the respondent-Bank pursuant to an order dated February 24, 1995 kept the petitioner under suspension, contemplating an enquiry. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out certain irregularities committed by him when he was at kumara Park Branch. Copy of the said show cause notice is at Annexure 'a'. A reply to the said notice was sent by the petitioner at annexure 'b'. The reply to the said show cause notice was not accepted by the respondent-Bank. After keeping the petitioner under suspension for some time, a charge sheet was issued, a copy of which is produced at annexure 'c'. Reply to the charge sheet was given, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'd'. The enquiry commenced on March 12, 1997 and a report was submitted on June 29, 1998 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Annexure 'f' is the report of the Enquiry Officer. Annexure H is the reply given by the petitioner to the said report. The Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the findings recorded on the charges and imputations found that the petitioner should be terminated from the service. Questioning the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal. In the appeal indeed he has raised several grounds and the appellate Authority having regard to the nature of the misconduct committed by the petitioner, confirmed the order of the Disciplinary authority. Hence, this writ petition.