R. PRABHAKARAN Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to forbear the respondent from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with Regulation 6 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 pursuant to the charge sheet dated 17.4.2007. The writ petition was admitted on 22.5.2007. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. On notice from this court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 31.3.2009.

(2.) IT is seen from the records that the petitioner was initially working as a Clerk governing by various Awards and bipartite settlements. He was placed under suspension on 7.7.2006 for grave misconducts. On 30.3.2007, the disciplinary authority had revoked his suspension and he was allowed to join duty. At present, the petitioner is working as an Assistant Manager at Dindigul Branch of the respondent Bank. He was subsequently given a charge memo, dated 17.4.2007 in terms of Regulation 6 of Vijaya Bank Officers Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. He had also submitted his defence statement on 16.5.2007 denying the charges.

(3.) THE petitioner's contentions are twofold. Firstly, the customers have withdrawn the complaints. The Bank has taken the stand that the same cannot be a ground to drop the charges against the petitioner. The second contention was that since the misconducts alleged arose when the petitioner was the Award staff, the procedure to be followed is one of disciplinary procedure found under the bipartite settlement and not under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of the Bank. The stand of the bank was that though the misconducts were committed when he was the Award Staff, since the charges were framed when he was holding the officer post, it can only refer to the Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. Though the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this court in M.N. Pavithran Vs. Central Bank of India reported in, 1985 (1) LLJ 26, it is submitted by the bank that subsequent to the earlier settlement, a further settlement has been taken containing different provisions. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon a division bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chief General Manager -cum -Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India Vs. S. Yesudas reported in : 1998 (6) ALT 1. It was held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in paragraph 6 as follows: