K KRUSHANASWAMY Vs. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the order passed by the second respondent, on 18.6.2004, and the order of the first respondent, dated 23.1.2006, communicated by the third respondent, by his proceedings, dated 1.2.2006, and to, consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service, as the manager of Canara Bank, Pallavaram, Chennai, with continuity of service, backwages and all other consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner has stated that he had been appointed in Canara Bank, as a Probationary Officer, on 29.11.1982, and he had been posted in Aruvankadu branch, Nilgiris District. He had been promoted as a Manager, in the year 1995 and he has been working in Seoni, Madhya Pradesh, from 31.5.1995 to 5.6.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner had been transferred to the Washermenpet branch, on 2.7.1998, and he had been working in the said branch, till 18.9.2001. The petitioner had been awarded excellent rating for his performance as the Manager in the Washermenpet branch, for the year 2000-2001. While so, he had been transferred to the Velachery branch and he had taken charge, on 21.9.2001. Thereafter, he had been transferred to the Pallavaram branch, as a second line manager. While so, the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 18.12.2001, had suspended the petitioner from service, on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were being contemplated against him, for certain acts of misconduct when he had been functioning as the manager at the Washermenpet branch, from 12.6.1998 to 18.9.2001.

(3.) It has also been stated that the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 23.12.2002, had framed certain charges against the petitioner, under Regulation 6 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The allegations in the charge sheet were that the petitioner had resorted to reckless lending and that he had exposed the bank to huge financial risk and that the investigation made by the authorities concerned had revealed serious irregularities in identification of the borrowers, sanctioning of loans etc. The petitioner had submitted his detailed explanation to the third respondent, in his representation, on 2.3.2002.