Y DIWAKAR SHETTY Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) never in a case our conscience has been so much troubled as in the present. The reason why, we are obliged to make this prefatory remark will be obvious as we go on with the judgment.

(2.) first, to the facts of the case. The appellant was issued a memorandum of chargeby the respondent -vijaya bank (herein after referred to as the bank) on 17th of october, 1977 alleging certain discrepencies against him, in that, he had fraudulently withdrawn sums from the accounts of the clients of the bank. In that charge memorandum, the instances of such irregularities amounting to serious misconduct was levelled against him. He was called upon to submit his explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the memorandum. The appellant put forth his explanation on 31st of october, 1977. He contended "i once again regret for some of the irregularities made by me which I have accepted unreserved and i request you to excuse me." after submitting his explanation on 15-11-1977, he wrote to the bank tendering his resignation and requested that he be relieved from the service of the bank from the date of the acceptance of the resignation. Notwithstanding that or 28-10-1978 he would write a letter to the following effect:

(3.) however, he added "even though ihave submitted my resignation letter dated 15-11-1977, i request you to kindly reinstate me in service." on 29th of january, 1979, on a perusal of the explanation submitted by the appellant on 31 10-1977, the bank proposed to award punishment of stoppage of two increments permanently when they fall due with cumulative effect. That proposal was implemented consequent on the appellant agreeing to the same. This was on 17-8-1979. On 7-2-1979, the appellant accepted the proposed punishment awarded to him and he also stated he does not propose to appeal against the decision of the bank. While the matter stood thus, on 5-3-1979 further to the memorandum of charge dated 17-10-1977, another memorandum of charge was issued to the appellant by the respondent-bank. That contained several instances of the appellant discunting cheques of accommodative nature in favour of third parties and therefore disciplinary action proposed to be taken concerning these irregularities. He was called upon to submit his explanation within seven days from the receipt of the memorandum. The appellant, in his reply daled 25-3-1979, again inter alia stated "i hereby submit that the minor lapses admilted above may kindly be pardoned." he prayed for a lenient view be taken and punishmenl be restricted to the stoppage of two increments proposed earlier on 29th of january, 1979, while the disciplinary proceedings had gone upto this stage, an enquiry was conducted on 1st of june, 1979. The regional manager, udupi branch of the respondent bank was constituted as enquiry officer. He, on an enquiry, came to the conclusion that all the charges levelled against the appellant stood proved. He concluded that the deliquent-officer had committed various lapses which are mostly of procedural nature and the same stood proved. He also slated that... Therefore, it is not established and proved as to whether the deliquent-officer has derived any personal benefits. It was further stated there was no financial loss to the institution, except a commission of Rs. 7.75 less collected in respect of b.a.e.d. 44/77 dated 24-4-77 in the name of sri. Victor pais, clerk. The matter was considered by the joint general manager by his memorandum dated 17th of august, 1979. He proposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment permanently when it falls due with cumulative effect. To this, the appellant writes a reply, since it constitutes interest reading, we propose to set out the reply in full.