RAMOO RAMESH Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the Manager of Andhra Bank, Ernakulam Branch. He was in Middle Management Grade III. On the ground of certain irregularities, he has been placed under suspension by Ext. P1 order dated 29-8-1984. That order is under challenge.

(2.) Ext. P2 dated 7-5-1985 is the memo of charges served on the petitioner. By that, 17 charges were levelled against him. Petitioner submitted his written explanation. Thereupon, the charges mentioned in Ext. P-2 were split up. Ext. P10 dated 10-2-1990 contains 5 charges and Ext. P21 dated 15-3-1990, the remaining 12 charges. Bank has initiated steps to get 12 charges mentioned in Ext.21 enquired into by the Enquiry Officer. That enquiry is, it is agreed at the bar, virtually over. According to .the learned counsel representing the petitioner, the Bank, with ulterior motive, split up the charges and got 12 charges enquired by the Enquiry Officer. In case the Enquiry Officer exonerates the petitioner from responsibility, it is the petitioner's case that the Bank will thereupon take up the 5 charges in Ext. P10 for initiating fresh enquiry. The intention of the bank is to keep the petitioner under suspension for an indefinite period.

(3.) The main argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the order of suspension was issued by an incompetent authority and so, that order has to be quashed. It is his further contention that even if the order of suspension is found to be valid, the order should be quashed because petitioner has been kept under suspension for about 8 years without any final order being passed in the disciplinary action initiated against him.