UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. M CHANDRASEKHRAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in Writ Appeal 263 of 2005 approached this Court challenging the order of dismissal confirmed by the Appellate Authority. He was employed as a Brach Manager of Nellikkode Branch of the first respondent - Union Bank. He was served with Ext. P2 statement of allegations. The allegation was that while he was serving as Branch Manager at Nellikkode Branch, the following omissions took place: 1]. Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. 2]. Acting otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties. The relevant portion of Ext. P2 statement of allegations are as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner's explanation for the same was that the customers were not available and they had instructed him to draw the amounts and pay the same to the creditors. It is also stated that this was done in the interest of the Bank and no loss was caused to the Bank. It was also pointed out that a crime was registered at the instance of the Bank, which was referred in view of Ext. P7 final report. The bank proceeded with the matter and an enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the findings, the enquiry officer found him guilty and on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, he was dismissed from the service of the bank. His appeal was also rejected.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge without going to the contentions raised regarding the conduct of the domestic enquiry, disposed of the Writ Petition on a short ground. Learned Judge held that the appellate authority ought to have granted him an opportunity for personal hearing as Appellate Authority is bound to hear the appellant in view of the decision of the Apex Court in B. Ram Chander vs. Union of India (AIR 1986 SC 1173 ). Therefore the Appellate Authority was directed to re-hear the matter and dispose of the same afresh. Aggrieved by the above, the bank filed W. A. 3063 of 2002. Contending that disciplinary proceeding should have been set aside, the petitioner filed W. A. 263 of 2005.