INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. M. P. SADANANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Indian Overseas Bank and its officials are challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C)No.15508 of 2013 dtd. 30/11/2021 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent / writ petitioner modifying the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows:- The writ petitioner joined the service of the first respondent Bank on 12/12/1990 as Messenger and was later promoted as Clerk from 1/12/2004. While he was working at the Pathanamthitta Branch of the Bank, he was sanctioned an overdraft facility with CC Account No.1109 as applicable to the bank staff with a limit of 2.24 lakh and his salary was being credited to the said account. He was also issued with an ATM card for withdrawals from the said account. The writ petitioner was later transferred to Adoor branch of the bank on 20/10/2009, where he joined on 21/10/2009. Following his transfer, CC Account No.1109 maintained at the Pathanamthitta branch along with the outstanding balance was transferred to Adoor branch only on 4/2/2010. As on 4/2/2010, there was a debit balance of Rs.2,25,4789.61 in CC Account No.1109, which was transferred to the new CC Account No.1154 opened at the Adoor branch. The bank alleged that the writ petitioner having been transferred from one branch to the other, was dis-entitled to operate the old CC account and was expected to surrender the ATM card issued for the old account and apply for a new ATM card to operate the new account in the transferred station. It is the bank's further contention that by an inadvertent oversight on the part of certain bank officials in the Pathanamthitta branch, the Master account in the computer system was not closed as a result of which the salary up to March 2010 was also credited in the old CC Account No.1109 at the Pathanamthitta branch. The bank's allegation is that the writ petitioner was in the know of things and took advantage of the lapse on the part of the bank staff at the Pathanamthitta branch in not transferring the account held there, to operate both the CC Accounts simultaneously. The bank further alleged that the old account was operated with the ATM card issued on that account and the new account was operated without any ATM card. The bank alleged that the writ petitioner had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2.31 lakh from the old account at Pathanamthitta branch during 21/3/2010 to 30/9/2010 and also withdrew Rs.2.21 lakh from the new CC Account No.1154 of the Adoor branch running a total outstanding balance of 4.51 lakh as on 30/9/2010 as against the sanctioned limit of Rs.2.24 lakh by fraudulently operating both the accounts.

(3.) The Bank on coming to know about the same issued Ext.P2 notice instructing him to close the outstanding dues in CC Account of the Pathanamthitta branch on or before 28/2/2011 and to submit his explanation for the improper drawings from the said account on or before 29/11/2011. The writ petitioner responded by Ext.P3 and the bank holding that the explanation was unacceptable, the employee was placed under suspension from 18/3/2011 by Ext.P4 order pending initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. Later, Ext.P5 charge-sheet dtd. 21/10/2021 was issued alleging misconduct under clause 5(d) and 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dtd. 10/4/2002 between the bank and its workmen. An enquiry was conducted, in which the workman conceded that his son had withdrawn the amount using the ATM card issued at the Pathanamthitta branch. He also addressed Ext.P8 letter to the Bank reiterating that the money was withdrawn by his son and that he was prepared to pay back the amount. The disciplinary authority held that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner were proved and accordingly imposed a punishment of dismissal without notice, by Ext.P10 order, in terms of clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement noted above which was confirmed in appeal by Ext.P12 order. These orders were challenged by the writ petitioner.