S MURUGESAN Vs. BANK OF TAMIL NADU LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges an order dated 3. 1. 1990 issued by the first respondent Bank and prays for a direction to reinstate him into the service of the third respondent with full backwages.

(2.) THE petitioner joined as a Clerk in 1971 in the first respondent-Bank and was promoted Junior Officer on 13. 12. 1978 and subsequently he was promoted as Manager in 1983 posted at Kandaramanickam Branch. He continued in that Branch after obtaining a promotion as Grade II Officer. THE petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry 11. 6. 1987. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 18. 9. 1987 for the following' (i) Suppression and misrepresentation of facts; (ii) Abuse of powers; (iii) Falsification of accounts; (iv) Manipulation of account books with ulterior motive to gain his personal end; (v) Unauthorised accommodation extended to certain parties with personal motive prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.' Since no reply to the memo of charges was given by the petitioner even after sufficient time, an enquiry was ordered to be held before one S. Seenivasagam, Advocate, Madurai, as enquiry Officer. THE Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the stood proved and as such, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 10. 4. 1989 enclosing the findings of the Enquiry Officer. THE petitioner submitted a letter on 18. 5. 1989 requesting extension of 10 days time on health grounds. Again on 28. 5. 1989, he submitted another letter for further extension of 15 days by producing a medical certificate. Subsequently, he had submitted another letter dated 12. 6. 1989 applying for extension time for 15 days on health grounds. Ultimately, on 30. 6. 1989, he submitted a reply show cause notice questioning the jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer in conducting departmental enquiry despite his genuine appeal for adjourning the enquiry. By letter dated 3. 7. 1989, the petitioner requested the Bank to extend him an opportunity personal hearing on the proposed punishment of dismissal. Accordingly, the petitioner asked to appear on 15. 7. 1989. It seems that in the personal hearing the petitioner admitted the lapses on his part and requested the Bank to grant him three months enable him to make due recovery of the Bank's money pending under cop account Andaramanickam Branch and the petitioner has been asking for extension of recover the Bank's money and when the impugned order was passed, a sum of Rs. 1,03,068 70 was still due to the Bank. Inspite of many opportunities given to the petitioner to the amount, and he did not come forward to defend the case before the Enquiry officer, impugned order came to be passed on the ground that the petitioner had manipulated Bank accounts, suppressed the facts, abused the powers and acted dishonestly in transactions. THE impugned order was passed on 3. 1. 1990.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 contends that the domestic enquiry was conducted according to the rules and after observing principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given every opportunity to inspect documents and take part in the enquiry and that the petitioner was represented by Union Representative and it is only the petitioner who did not take part in the enquiry allowed the impugned order to be passed.