SUSEELAN L Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Based upon the challenge in this writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, a substantial question that arises for consideration pertaining to the principles of natural justice is that, in a disciplinary proceedings when enquiry officer and disciplinary authority are different persons, whether the enquiry officer is justified in serving a charge-sheet without furnishing a statement of allegations along with it to the delinquent officer and whether the failure of it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and the punishment imposed thereunder and also seeking a direction to reinstate him at Karakulam Branch of Indian Bank with all consequential benefits. The petitioner joined in the Indian Bank on 1-3-1982 as a sub staff, who was later promoted as Clerk on 19-8-1995 and was working at Karakulam Branch. While working in that branch, disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner, accordingly, he was suspended from service on 15-7-2008 and after inquiry, punishment was imposed on him. Petitioner contended that disciplinary authority had not followed the principles of natural justice and therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner in Ext. P-18 and his subsequent transfer to Kottarakkara Branch are unsustainable in law. The statement of facts supporting the memo of charge was not issued to the petitioner in the inquiry, which is fatal to the disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner also contended that violation of principles of natural justice is a good ground to interfere in this matter.

(3.) The respondents in their counter-affidavit contended that when alternate remedy is available, petitioner is barred from filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner can approach the industrial tribunal according to the Industrial Disputes Act for redressing his grievance. When proper inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer after following the principles of natural justice, there is no reason to interfere. The allegations in Ext. P-l are made against the hierarchy, however, making false allegations against the hierarchy will amount to misconduct.