SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS. Vs. P.I. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WA No. 1766/02 is filed by the respondents in OP No. 13836/1997 challenging judgment dated 28/5/2002. The respondent herein is the writ petitioner, who is hereinafter referred as the petitioner. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had set aside the enquiry proceedings and the dismissal order imposed on the petitioner, giving liberty to the appellants to take appropriate proceedings including fresh enquiry against the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts involved in the above original petition would disclose that the petitioner while working as Manager of Syndicate Bank was placed under suspension on the allegation that he had opened two Savings Bank accounts and had disbursed loan amounts to two fictitious persons. After issuing show cause notice dated 27/5/1995, an enquiry was conducted in which he was found guilty and he was dismissed from service by Ext. P10 order. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Ext. P11 order and the writ petition was filed challenging the disciplinary proceedings as well as the imposition of punishment, which was confirmed in appeal.

(3.) THE main contention urged on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge had gone beyond the scope of judicial review and has set aside the enquiry proceedings on re -appreciation of facts and evidence which was not warranted under the circumstances. Further, it is contended that two criminal cases were registered against the petitioner and he was found guilty in one case under sections 409, 465, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - for the offence under Section 409 IPC, and separate punishments were awarded in respect of other offences. It is therefore contended that under Regulation 11 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the '1976 Regulations'), it was mandatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to impose penalty on an officer who has been convicted in a criminal case.