K. R. S. PANICKER Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was an Assistant Manager of the respondent Bank. According to him he had an unblemished record of 30 years service in the Bank. While he was working in the Cannanore branch of the Bank he was served with a memo of charges, Ext. P1 dated 18.9.1986. The Articles of charge contained two allegations. In this case we are concerned only with Art.2, which reads as follows:

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no consideration of the proportionality of the punishment in Ext. P4 order. This Court found that the punishment of dismissal is not warranted under the circumstances of the case and directed the respondent to pass fresh orders considering whether any other suitable punishment has to be imposed on the petitioner. Then the respondent should have considered the whole aspect of the matter afresh and not to pass an order like Ext. P4 where the punishment of dismissal was just converted into a punishment of compulsory retirement. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the gravity of the charge issued against the petitioner should have been taken into consideration while shaping the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner. Since that has not been done in this case, Ext. P4 is liable to be interfered by this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice the facts relating to charge No. 2 and that the evidence in the oral enquiry showed that the petitioner was keeping Rs. 300/- which was received from a client in an envelope. He also issued a receipt. But thereafter he was on leave for some days and forgot all about the matter. When he came back after leave he was alerted by the Manager about the remittance of the amount in the Bank. Thereafter he remitted the above amount. Therefore there is no willful mis appropriation of the amount by the petitioner and this is not an offence which warrants extreme punishment of compulsory retirement.