KASI M Vs. MGMT OF INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein. He had prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari by calling for the records of the General Manager, Indian Bank and quash the order dated July 23, 1984, confirming the order of the disciplinary authority, dated December 30, 1983, removing the petitioner from the services of the bank as Branch Manager at that time at Pondicherry.

(2.) The facts of the case are given below: The appellant joined the services of the bank as clerk-cum-godown keeper in the year 1960. After 12 years of service and after successful completion of examination and interview for promotion as an officer, he was promoted as an officer of the bank on April 15, 1972 to the post of Accountant. He was further promoted to the post of Manager in the month of September as Branch Manager, Pondicherry Branch. After four years of his service in that post, he was placed under suspension on March 24, 1980 on the basis of an enquiry in relation to contravention of norms laid down by the bank and finally, an article of charges, dated February 24, 1982 was issued to the appellant and he submitted his explanation on March 13, 1982. An additional charge, dated May 25, 1982, was issued to the appellant. The appellant submitted his explanation for all the charges, but departmental proceedings were continued by appointing an enquiry officer. Before the enquiry officer, oral evidence was let in and the petitioner was interrogated and documents were filed on behalf of the bank, written arguments were submitted on March 31, 1982 and the petitioner submitted his defence on April 13, 1983. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the copy of which was not furnished to the petitioner, awarded the penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 4(g) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeals) Regulations, 1979. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the General Manager was dismissed by an order, dated July 28, 1984, confirming the order of removal. The learned Judge declined to interfere with the punishment of removal from service in view of the findings of fact on the charges made against the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel Ms. Anna Mathew arguing on behalf of the appellant submitted that this Court has got jurisdiction to interfere even with the findings if there was no evidence or if the evidence available was perverse and that no reasonable person could have come to the conclusion on the basis of the materials. According to her, the irregularity, if any established, is only a technical lapse and it cannot be stated that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence so as to bring it within the meaning of misconduct under Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations, 1976. She had taken us through the charges and the findings and submitted that the charges were not established and there was no loss to the bank. According to her, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority failed to apply to the pleadings of appellant and has simply accepted the defending of the enquiry officer which were not furnished to the petitioner. The authorities below have failed to consider the proportionality of the nature of allegations and its proof of guilt and his clean, meritorious record of service before imposing the major penalty of removal from service. The same error has crept in the order in the writ petition as well.