M MAHALINGAM Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is for the issue of writ of certioraified mandamus to call for the records relating to the orders of the first respondent dated 5.1.1991 bearing ref.Nos.03/PD:IRD/DA-6 and 04/PD:IRD/DA-6 Ex.A. as confirmed by the order of the second respondent dated 31.5.1991 and 26.4.1991 (bearing Ref.Nos.148/PD: IRD/DA-7 and 91/PD:IRD/DA-7-Ex.B ) and third respondent dated 24.10.1991 (bearing Ref.Nos.248/PD:IRD/DA- 7 and 247/PD:IRD/DA-7 Ex.C. ) and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service with full backwages and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he joined the respondent bank as clerk in the year 1974 and got promotions in the usual course. Lastly, he was holding the post of Assistant Manager at Madras Central Accounts Officer and prior to that as the Manager at Mopur Branch at Nellore District. THE petitioner was removed from service by orders of the first respondent- Personnel Manager/Disciplinary Authority, dated 5.1.1991 in respect of the charge sheets dated 27.3.1987 and 18.8.1988. THE charge sheets related to the period when the petitioner was working as the Manager of the South Mopur Branch of the respondent bank at Nellore District. THE charges levelled against the petitioner in the first charge sheet dated 27.3.1987 were, that the petitioner indiscriminately drew sundry advances for petrol charges between January 1984 and June, 1985 and he did not account for the same, and within that period, he had drawn amount to the tune of Rs.28,350 whereas the actual amount spent on petrol was only Rs.4,289.53. On 23.2.1985, he had drawn a part of his salary amounting to Rs. 1,900 in advance without the permission of the competent authority and this was in violation of Rule 16 of the Service rules; one Balasudhakar, a customer of the bank came and deposited a D.D. on 8.6.1985 for Rs.4,000 and the petitioner discounted it and gave him only Rs. 1,600 and appropriated the balance of Rs.2,400 on the plea that a third party cheque presented by him earlier on 4.1.1985 for the amount of Rs.2400 drawn on the Catholic Syrian Bank, Nellore , had been lost in transit and the further allegation was that the petitioner deposited the said amount of Rs.2,400 subsequently to the bank on 13.6.1985 and misappropriated the amount for five days. THE second charge sheet dated 18.8.1988 contained three charges. THE first charge was that a customer by name Sundara Ramaiah brought Rs.5,000 for depositing the same into the bank on 23.12.1985 and the petitioner did not credit it into his savings bank account No.92 but on the contrary, the petitioner has misappropriated the same and made a ficitious entry for the said amount in the account. THE second charge was dropped. THE third charge relate to grant of 11 loans amounting to Rs.47,000. THE petitioner was charge sheeted on the above charges. With regard to the first charge sheet dated 27.3.1987, the enquiry officer by his findings dated 30.11.1990 came to the conclusion that charge No.1, 2 and 4 stood proved in the enquiry and charge No.3 stood deleted from the charge-sheet by the disciplinary authority. With regard to the second charge sheet dated 18.8.1988, the enquiry officer by his findings dated 27.11.1990 came to the conclusion that charge no.1 stood proved in the enquiry, charge No.2 has been deleted by the disciplinary authority and charge No.3 stood proved against the petitioner. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, the first respondent disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from services of the bank, by order dated 5.1.1991. According to the petitioner, the first respondent-disciplinary authority without furnishing a copy of the report of the enquiry officer to him with regard to the two charge sheets dated 27.3.1987 and 18.8.1988, came to the conclusion of removing the petitioner from service and passed the final orders on 5.1.1991 removing the petitioner from service. While passing the order of such removal, the disciplinary authority has enclosed a copy of the report of the enquiry officer. Aggrieved by the said order of removal passed by the first respondent-disciplinary authority, the petitioner has filed appeal before the second respondent Assistant General Manager. THE second respondent-appellate authority by his order dated 31.5.1991 and 26.4.1991 respectively, has passed the order confirming the orders passed by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner i.e. punishment of removal from the services of the bank with immediate effect, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner has again preferred review petitions before the third respondent-reviewing authority- Executive Director of Syndicate Bank, Manipal. THE third respondent-reviewing authority by its order dated 24.10.1991, has rejected the review petitions and confirmed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the above orders passed by the respondents, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(3.) THE facts in Vishwa Mohan's case, AIR 1998 SC 2311 show that the enquiry proceedings were proceeded with ex parte. At paragraph 7 of its decision, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: