H RAJENDRA PAI Vs. CHAIRMAN CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Original Petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P4, P5 and P7, to declare that the entire enquiry against him is in violation of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and the principles of natural justice, and therefore void, and to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to immediately reinstate him in service with all benefits due to him.

(2.) The petitioner was working as the Manager in the Kallekkad Branch of the Canara Bank. He was issued with a charge sheet Ext. P1 alleging certain misconduct against him. It was alleged in Ext. P1 that while working as Manager of Kallekkad Branch, the petitioner granted several loans indiscriminately beyond his sanctioning powers and in total disregard to the accepted banking norms and practice and that he allowed part of the loan proceeds to be credited to loan accounts of other parties for closing overdue loans and for reducing the liability, and he also allowed part amount of loan proceeds to be credited to his own account, The statement of imputations appended to Ext. P1 gives the details of the irregularities committed by the petitioner. Among other charges, it was also alleged that the petitioner was granting loans on the recommendation of M/s. Kannappan, V.P. Govindam, A. Sivaraman and Raman and the said practice enabled one of them to receive illegal gratifications from the borrowers concerned and that the petitioner granted several loans to the members of the Pirayiri Dairy, of which Mr. Kannappan was the Managing Partner and the wife of the petitioner was one of the partners. It is also alleged in Ext. P1 that the petitioner failed to inform the competent authority at the appropriate time about the petitioner's wife's interest in the abovesaid partnership firm and the petitioner failed to perform his duties with honesty, devotion and diligence and thereby contravened Regulation.3 (1) and 5(3) read with Regulation.24 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation.1976, a misconduct actionable under the provisions of the Canara Batik Officer ' Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

(3.) On denial of the petitioner the allegations contained in the chargesheet, the Bank appointed Sri. S. N. K. Nair, Divisional Manager, Canara Bank, Divisional Office, Trivandrum the 3rd respondent herein, as the Enquiry Officer. It is the petitioner's case that no Presenting Officer was appointed and instead, the Enquiry Officer himself examined the petitioner who is the delinquent and put various questions in the form of cross examination virtually eliciting from him answers which were later on relied in the enquiry report to find the petitioner guilty. Ext. P2 is the proceedings relating to the examination of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent. After the said enquiry, the petitioner submitted Ext. P3 statement of defence. The respondent submitted an enquiry report finding that the petitioner was guilty in respect of some charges while holding him innocent of other charges. Ext. P4 is the copy of the report. Based on the enquiry report, the 2nd respondent imposed on the petitioner a punishment of removal from service, as per Ext. P5. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Ext. P6 appeal before the Board of Directors, Canara Bank. The Board of Directors considered his appeal and rejected the same as per Ext. P7.