G. SUNDARAM Vs. GENERAL MANAGER (DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY), CANARA BANK, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SECTION, PERSONNEL WING, HEAD OFFICE, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 14th May, 1991 in confirming the orders made by the disciplinary authority dated 20th June, 1990 in imposing a minor penalty under the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 ('Regulations' for short).

(2.) BRIEF facts are, petitioner is an employee of the Canara Bank ('Bank' for short). In the year 1984, he was holding the post of an officer at Tirunelveli Junction branch of the Bank. As evidenced by Annexure -A to the petition, a show -cause notice dated 17 -1 -1987 came to be issued by the Divisional Manager of the Bank directing the petitioner to show -cause to the allegations of omissions and commissions said to have been committed by him while working at Tirunelveli Junction Branch of the Bank. The details of which, I will notice a little later. The notice was replied and allegations were denied by the petitioner by his letter dated 9 -2 -1987. On receipt of the reply from the petitioner, the Bank by its order dated 11 -5 -1987, directed the petitioner to reimburse to the Bank an amount of Rs. 2,200/ - said to be the pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by petitioner's negligence. Since petitioner did not comply with the demand and directions of the Bank, a charge memo dated 21 -11 -1989 came to be served on the petitioner, incorporating the same acts of omissions as noticed in the show -cause notice. The delinquent officer filed his written statement of defence in detail denying that he had committed the acts of misconduct alleged in the charge memo. The disciplinary authority after considering the reply filed by the petitioner, passed an order exercising his powers under Regulation 8(1) of the Regulations, imposed a penalty as provided under Regulation 4(d) of the Regulations. Thereafter, petitioner had unsuccessfully had filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Aggrieved by these orders, delinquent officer employee is before this Court inter alia questioning the legality or otherwise of the aforesaid orders.

(3.) PER contra Sri S. Ramadas, learned Counsel for respondents sought to justify the impugned orders by placing reliance on the language employed in Regulation 8(1) of the Regulations and submits that if the materials available on record sufficient to hold an employee guilty of the lapses levelled against him, there is no necessity to hold any enquiry much less a detailed enquiry.