SHRI G RANGA RAMANUJAM Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL OFFICE CHENNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Shri.G.Ranga Ramanujam, while working as cashier in the Indian Overseas Bank, he is alleged to have committed serious misconduct of receiving money from the customers but without crediting the same into the account of the account holders, said to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,000/- paid by one of the account holder on two dates namely, 09.08.2000 and 14.09.2000. THE account holder, having seen that the Bank has not credited the above said Rs.4,000/- namely Rs.2,000/- paid on 09.08.2000 and another Rs.2,000/- paid on 14.09.2000 into his account, made a complaint.

(2.) THESE irregularities were spotted when the account holder Smt.G.Sudha gave her passbook at the Bank for updating her previous entry and only at that point of time, the account holder realised that the installment for the month of August 2000 paid on 09.08.2000 and the installment for the month of September 2000 paid on 14.09.2000 were not credited into the said RD account. Therefore, the account holder preferred a complaint on 07.03.2001 enclosing the copies of counterfoils and also sent a reminder on 20.03.2003 requesting the Branch Manager to credit the amount of Rs.4,000/- into her RD account and, finally, the account holder received Rs.1,64,436/-, being the maturity amount, inclusive of the amount of Rs.4,000/- said to have been misappropriated by the petitioner.

(3.) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present writ petition is in view of threat to the life to his client, the petitioner was not able to appear for the enquiry held in Mayiladuthurai on 25.09.2003. THErefore, even before the enquiry officer held the enquiry, a letter was written expressing his personal difficulty for not being able to appear in the said enquiry. However, when further request was made requesting the respondent herein to shift the venue from Mayiladuthurai to Chennai head office, the same has not been considered. THErefore, the petitioner lost the only chance of appearing before the enquiry officer to prove his innocence. In his further submission he also submitted that only on the basis of a baseless complaint made by one of the account holders, the charges were framed and finally the enquiry officer, without giving reasonable opportunity, proceeded with the enquiry and a major punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. THErefore, it is submitted that the said impugned order of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate to the nature of charges and on the basis prayed for quashing the impugned order and also further prayed for allowing the present writ petition.