N SUNDARARAJAN Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court was as follows : It is unfortunate that the once settled matter was sought to be reopened at the instance of the respondents and thereby causing harassment to the petitioner for no fault of his.

(2.) THE brief background of the case was that the petitioner who was appointed as a Clerk on 22-4-1981 was issued with the chargesheet , dated 13-12-1997, in which it was alleged that he unauthorisedly made fraudulent debit entries totalling Rs. 75, 500/- in thes. B. A/c No. 40723 of one Master Kaushik and misappropriated the said amount. It was stated therein that by virtue of the said conduct of the petitioner, it amounted to commission of gross misconduct falling within paragraphs 17. 5 (d) and 17. 5 (j) of the Bipartite settlement. It is relevant to note that the said chargesheet , dated 13-12-1997 was issued by one Thiru. R. Sudarsanan in his capacity as the disciplinary authority. On submission of the explanation by the petitioner, the said disciplinary authority himself held an enquiry and he submitted his findings on 12-7-1999 holding that none of the allegations levelled against the petitioner was proved. He, therefore, concluded that the petitioner was innocent and that he was only made a scapegoat. THEreafter, when the defence representative wrote to the first respondent Bankon 7-8-1999 for thereinstatement of the petitioner, a letter came to be issued on 9-9-1999 at the instance of one Thiru. S. S. Sharma, Deputy General Manager also claiming to be the disciplinary authority, stating that the action initiated against the petitioner fell under the category of composite cases, as it involved both officer employees and award staff and, therefore, the said case was entrusted to him in his capacity as disciplinary authority. It was further stated in the said communication that on going through the findings arrived at by the Enquiry officer Thiru. R. Sudarsanan , he observed that relevant witnesses were omitted to be examined and relevant documents were also omitted to be marked in the enquiry proceedings. According to Thiru. S. S. Sharma, in his opinion, a fresh enquiry was required for examining relevant witnesses/documents for arriving at appropriate findings in this matter. In that view, Thiru. Sharma entrusted the case to one Thiru. N. Krishnamoorthy for holding a fresh enquiry. When a detailed reply to the said letter was addressed on behalf of the petitioner on 27-9-1999 to the Chairman of the first respondent Bank, Thiru. S. S. Sharma, taking a sudden'u'turn, by his letter dated 29-10-1999 addressed to the petitioner, expressed that his letter dated 9-9-1999 stood cancelled and that he would hear further from the previous disciplinary authority Thiru. R. Sudarsanan. THEreafter, when the impugned communication, dated 3-5-2000 came to be issued, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by way of this Writ Petition. In this context, it is also relevant to point out that under the procedure prescribed for taking disciplinary action, it is provided that the disciplinary authority can either conduct the enquiry himself or appoint any other officer as Enquiry Officer for the purpose of conducting an enquiry. Time and again, it has been repeatedly pointed out by the Courts that actions at the instance of the management with a view to some how or other fix an employee even after the conclusion of the detailed enquiry in which the concerned delinquent was found innocent, should not be proceeded with. It is unfortunate that a public sector bank of very wide set up like that of the first respondent should resort to such an extremely unwarranted action against the petitioner. THE present attempt of the respondents only demonstrates the arbitrary move of the first respondent bank on part of its vengeantful action against the petitioner to do away with him irrespective of its own disciplinary authority giving a clean chit to the petitioner after holding an elaborate enquiry in this case.