PHILIPOISE Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A classic example of unfairness is manifested in the facts of this case illustrating how thanklessly an employee who served an establishment till his retirement for four decades with meritorious promotions' and extension of time for retirement can be victimized and harassed by unexplained prolonged proceedings for seven and a half years and delayed payment of retirement benefits. Petitioner served the 1st respondent Public sector bank for about 40 years, out of which 17 years as Manager in various branches in the State. He reached the age of superannuation on May 7, 1981. But since his service was very much useful to the Bank, considering his efficiency he was given five years extension and he retired on May 31, 1986 after a credit worthy unblemished service for more than 4 decades. A charge sheet was issued to him just before the extended date of retirement with undue hurry raising various allegations. As per service conditions even though no charge sheet can be issued after the date of retirement, if charges are issued before the date of retirement, proceedings can be continued. He gave explanation. A fresh charge sheet dated June 3, 1986 was issued admittedly after the retirement. He gave explanation to that charge also. There was undue delay in proceeding with the enquiry. No enquiry or proceedings were conducted in pursuance to the charge sheet and no retirement benefits were also given until he approached this Court by filing a writ petition O.P. No. 2687/1987 which was disposed of on October 5, 1988 by Ext. P6 judgment. This Court held that if the second charge sheet contained new allegations, it will not lie as it was issued after retirement. With regard to the first charge sheet this Court observed as follows:

(2.) The Enquiry Officer after considering the evidence clearly found that petitioner was not guilty on any of the charges alleged against him. Ext. P7 is the enquiry report. It would show that the entire evidence adduced by both sides were considered elaborately and meticulously by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was given Ext. P8 letter dated July 27, 1991 forwarding the enquiry proceedings. It states as follows:

(3.) On conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiring Authority has submitted his report dated July 5, 1991, a copy of the same is enclosed. A copy of Enquiry Report which is now made available to you is without prejudice to the Special Leave Petition filed by the Bank and pending before the Supreme Court and subject to the decision that may be pronounced by the Supreme Court.