E S NAMBIAR Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges an order of dismissal passed against him in a disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner was in the service of the 1st respondent Union Bank of India. He joined service of the Bank in 1958. He was promoted to the category of Officer in 1969 and he became an Officer Grade I in 1978. He was working as Branch Manager of Quilon during the period 1977 to 1981. From Quilon Branch, he was transferred to Calicut Branch. This was on 26-6-1981. Petitioner submits that when he was transferred from Quilon Branch to Calicut the successor in office took charge of the Branch and relieved the petitioner. The successor in office certified that he has taken a complete and effective charge of the branch from the petitioner and the petitioner has been relieved. The successor further confirmed that he has satisfied himself that all the account books are balanced and that the cash, securities, valuables, godown, documents, etc. have been duly verified by him and found to be in order. Further, petitioner submitted that in the periodical inspections no irregularity was found and is so noted in the inspection reports.

(2.) Ext. P2 was served on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. By Ext. P2, articles of charges were framed against the petitioner. Petitioner was informed that an enquiry into the charges framed will be held against him in terms of the provisions of Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). In Ext. P2, it is also stated that the place, date and time of the enquiry and the name of the inquiring authority will be intimated to the petitioner in due course. Ext. P2 directed the petitioner to submit any statement of defence, if he wants to file within 15 days of receipt thereof. These directions are given, it appears, in accordance with Regulation 6 of the Regulations.

(3.) Subsequently, some more charges were added. Ext. P3 is a memorandum relating to the allegations regarding certain charges. Ext. P4 is another memorandum relating to three charges. Ext. P4 is dated 13-1-1983. In Ext. P4, the disciplinary authority has said that an enquiry into the charges mentioned in Ext. P4 will be held by Shri. M. K. Satyamurthy, Assistant Superintendent (P), Regional Office, Ernakulam along with the charges levelled against the petitioner vide memorandum No.DP: IR: 2972 dated 18-3-1982 and DP:IR:12808 dated 10-11-1982. In Ext. P4, the disciplinary authority directed the petitioner that if he so desires to submit his statement of defence, he may do so, directly to the enquiry officer within 7 days of receipt of Ext. P4. On 29th June, 1983, petitioner was served with another memo of charges. There also, petitioner was directed, if he desires to submit his written statement of defence, he may do so directly to the enquiry officer within 7 days of receipt thereof.