C. SETHUMADHAVAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dtd. 14/8/2017 in W.P.(C) No.17930 of 2011 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C) and respondent was the respondent therein. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the W.P.(C).

(2.) While working as an officer in the cadre of Manager Grade III in the respondent Bank, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet for the alleged failure in duty as Branch Manager at Kaloor Branch during the period 11/11/2005 to 24/5/2006. He was issued with Ext.P1 charge memo along with a statement of allegation of misconduct. He preferred Ext.P4 reply before the Inquiry officer, and in the inquiry that followed, the inquiring authority filed Ext.P5 report dtd. 24/4/2010 finding that out of the six charges levelled against the petitioner, three charges stood proved while three charges were not proved. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred Ext.P6 reply to the findings of the inquiring authority. However, without considering the same, the disciplinary authority vide Ext.P7 order dtd. 26/10/2010 imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. Ext.P8 appeal was preferred by the petitioner, alleging that there had been a gross violation of principles of natural justice in the appeal. However, the appellate authority rejected his appeal vide Ext.P9 order dtd. 5/4/2011. The Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P1, P5, P7 and P9. A counter affidavit was filed by the Bank, producing Ext.R1(a), which was a copy of the communication issued by the disciplinary authority, along with tabular analysis of the inquiry authority report made by the disciplinary authority. Petitioner, along with an affidavit, produced additional documents marked as Exts.P10 (a) to P15 to substantiate his contentions. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that there was no reason to interfere with the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner and that laches and lapses in discharging duty cannot be visited with any consequence other than ordering compulsory retirement from service. Challenging the said judgment, this Writ Appeal has been filed.

(3.) Heard, Sri.V.A.Muhammed, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri.George Thomas Mevada, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri.Amal George Advocate for the respondent Bank.