BALAGOPALAN P K Vs. DY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the petitioner and the respondents herein were the respondents in OP No. 20260 of 2000. The said Original Petition was filed by the appellant challenging Exts. P1, P3, P5, P7, P10, P11 and P13 and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits.

(2.) Ext. P1 is the memo of charges dated 14/02/2000 issued by the first respondent initiating proceedings for imposition of a minor penalty against the appellant / petitioner. Ext. P7 is the memo of charges dated 09/08/1999 issued by the first respondent initiating proceedings for imposing a major penalty against the appellant / petitioner. A mere perusal of Exts. P1 and P7 would reveal that they were issued based on the same set of charges. The allegations based on which Exts. P1 and P7 were issued to the appellant / petitioner pertain to the period between 25/04/1994 and 22/08/1998 during which, he was functioning as the Branch Manager, Melmuri Branch of the Syndicate Bank. The disciplinary proceedings initiated as per Exts. P1 and P7 culminated in an order directing recovery of loss to the tune of Rs.1,01.980/- and a penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the appellant as per Ext. P11 order and the appeal preferred against the same was rejected as per Ext. P13. The proceedings initiated as per Ext. P1 culminated in Ext. P3 order whereby the aforesaid amount, being the financial loss by way of seepage of income caused to the bank on account of the transactions carried out by the appellant, was ordered to be recovered from him. The appeal preferred against Ext. P1 was rejected as per Ext. P6. It was challenging the aforesaid orders that the Original Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the Original Petition. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) We heard Sri. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri M. P. Asok Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Virtually, both the appellant and the respondents reiterated before us the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge.