V D MUNEESWARAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER OPERATIONS II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeal has been filed against the order made in W.P.No.7293/2000, dated 01.04.2003.

(2.) THE appellant in the writ appeal is the writ petitioner in the W.P.No.7293/2000. THE prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 10.01.2000 and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(3.) THE second respondent bank resisted the writ petition by filing the counter affidavit, inter alia contending that the appellant misused his position as an officer incharge of the Advances Department and indulged in any many acts of personal gain at the cost of the borrowers of the respondent bank as mentioned in the charge memo. It was further contended that before the enquiry officer, the bank submitted 138 documents as exhibits besides examining the 11 witnesses in support of the charges. THE appellant was assisted by a defence representative and he had produced 46 documents and examined himself as the only witness. At the conclusion of the enquiry written briefs were presented by the both sides and on 17.06.1999, the enquiry officer submitted his report. THE copy of the report was sent to the appellant on 18.06.1999, seeking his comments and the appellant also submitted his reply on 12.07.1999. THE order of compulsory retirement was passed on 03.09.1999, as per Regulation 4 of the Regulations. Further, it was pointed out in the counter affidavit about the various financial irregularities committed by the appellant and taking all the factors, the order of compulsory retirement was passed and as such the order was just and proper.