C.KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR Vs. CHAIRMAN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the branch manager of the Nedungadi Bank, which was later amalgamated with the Punjab National Bank. On certain allegations of misconducts, Ext.P4 charge memo was issued to the petitioner. Since the explanation given by the petitioner to the allegations was not satisfactory to the bank, the bank conducted an enquiry into the allegations of misconducts and the enquiry officer submitted Ext.P7 report finding the petitioner guilty of all the misconducts except one. Pursuant to the finding of guilt, the petitioner was dismissed from service by Ext.P10 order after hearing him on the question of punishment also. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of dismissal, which was dismissed by Ext.P12 order. By that time, the bank had been amalgamated with the Punjab National Bank. After the amalgamation, the petitioner filed a review petition before the reviewing authority. The same was also dismissed by Ext.P13 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P10, P12 and P13 orders in this writ petition.

(2.) MAINLY the petitioner raises three contentions. The first is that the enquiry is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice insofar as the petitioner was not allowed to examine the cashier, whose evidence was necessary to prove the innocence of the petitioner. The second is that the finding of guilt entered by the enquiry officer is against the evidence adduced in the enquiry. The third is that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconducts alleged against the petitioner.

(3.) THE first contention is that the petitioner wanted to examine the cashier as his witness and the management took the stand that it is for the petitioner to produce the cashier as a witness for examination, which violates principles of natural justice. I am of opinion that it is settled law that the management is not bound to produce witnesses of the delinquent in a domestic enquiry and that the enquiry officer does not have powers to enforce attendance of witnesses in domestic enquiries. Of course, if the person whom the delinquent wanted to examine as a witness is under the control of the management, it is for the delinquent to file a petition before the enquiry officer either to summon him or to direct the management to produce him for examination as a witness on the side of the delinquent. Admittedly, the petitioner has not chosen to take that course of action. Therefore, if the management takes the stand that it is for the petitioner to produce his witness, unless the petitioner has followed the procedure I have mentioned above, the enquiry cannot be stated to be in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the first contention raised by the petitioner.