SIVAPRASAD Vs. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in the Original Petition is the appellant in this Writ Appeal. While employed as Assistant Manager in Aroor Branch of the 1st respondent State Bank of Travancore, appellant was placed under suspension pending enquiry, as per memo dated 29.7.1999 issued by the 2nd respondent. Appellant was issued Ext. P1 memo of charges and an enquiry was initiated as per Ext. P3 proceedings. Placing reliance on Clause.68(2)(vii) of the State Bank of Travancore (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 framed by the Bank, appellant nominated one Sri. P.N. Sambasivan, Deputy Manager, Region III, S.B.T., Zonal Office, Kozhikode as his defence representative. However, the 3rd respondent inquiring authority, as per Ext. P9 letter, declined the appellant's request. Ext. P9 was challenged in the Original Petition.

(2.) The learned Single Judge took note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the Bank that it was not possible to relieve Sri. Sambasivan for assisting the appellant due to administrative reasons. According to the Bank, the said officer was involved in criminal cases, the C.B.I. was investigating into the same and in connection with the investigation he was on leave for many days. The learned Single Judge, therefore, directed the appellant to nominate any other officer in the Bank as his defence representative within three weeks from the date of judgment. The judgment was delivered on 24.1.2000. It was further directed that if such a request was made by the appellant, it should be allowed. The learned Single Judge also observed that the Original Petition was not being kept pending, since the enquiry had to be completed expeditiously.

(3.) Admittedly, appellant had not moved his little finger pursuant to the direction of the learned single Judge. The inquiring authority, 3rd respondent, issued Annexure.A1 letter dated 29.2.2000 intimating the appellant that he had not complied with the directions contained in the judgment and since the enquiry had to be completed expeditiously, the matter was being posted for hearing on 13th March, 2000 at the premises of the Aroor Branch of the Bank. He was offered an opportunity to verify the records so as to enable him to file the list of documents and witnesses. He was also asked to furnish the list, latest by 8.3.2000.