DENA BANK Vs. SHAKUNTALA MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 to 4 in the Original Petition are the appellants herein. The petitioner in the Original Petition while working as Glass I employee of Dena Bank, Cochin Naval Base Branch was served with a charge sheet dated 5th March 1987. The allegations in the charge sheet were that:

(2.) Several grounds were urged by the petitioner for challenging the punishment order. The major grounds are: (L) Copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before imposing the punishment and on that ground enquiry is liable to be set aside. (2) Even if the allegations are proved these allegations will not come under Regulation.3(i) and therefore no major punishment can be imposed (3) Procedure prescribed under the Regulations before the disciplinary actions were not complied with. Regulation.6 (17) reads as follows:

(3.) By the impugned Judgment learned Single Judge set aside Ext. P-L punishment order and Exts. P-3 and P-4 appellate orders on the grounds that: (1) No enquiry report was given before imposing punishment and in view of the decision in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan there is violation of rules of natural justice as enquiry report was not furnished and no second show cause notice was issued proposing the punishment. (2) Under Regulation.17 (ii) the appellate authority is bound to consider whether findings of the enquiring authority are justified or not and whether penalty is excessive or inadequate. But the appellate order is not a speaking order. The appellate authority has not considered whether the findings are justified or not and whether the punishment is excessive or inadequate. It was also found that there is no power for review and therefore, Ext. P-4 review order can be ignored. (3) There is violation of Regulation.6(17). Learned Single Judge held that: