V.LAKSHMANAN Vs. CHAIRMAN, DISCIPLINARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the orders, dated 5.3.2004 passed by the Chairman /Disciplinary Authority, Pandyan Grama Bank, Virudhunagar, the first respondent herein, and the further order on appeal, dated 8.1.2005, passed by the Board of Directors of Pandyan Grama Bank, the second respondent herein, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the same and consequently, prayed for a direction to the respondents to restore his pay to the original position. Facts of the case are as follows;

(2.) Assailing the correctness of both the orders, Mr. K. Vellaisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Enquiry Officer held that the allegation in Charge No. 1, misappropriation as not proved, the disciplinary authorities, without considering the defence in proper perspective, mechanically have held the same, as proved, stating that the petitioner was a party to the transaction, ignoring the fact that to prove an allegation of misappropriation, there must be a loss and that the said ingredient has to be substantiated by evidence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the loss to the Bank, on the alleged act of misappropriation, has not been substantiated and in such circumstances, there was absolutely no reason to overrule the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He also submitted that the disciplinary authorities have relied on certain statements obtained behind the back of the petitioner and any finding, recorded on the basis of the above said statements, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

(3.) On the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the statement of one Mr. Manoharan, that he had pledged jewels under JL(O)606/97, for his own requirement and not for others, itself would show that there was no manifest illegality committed by the petitioner. Besides, the amount due on the jewel loan was also duly paid. On the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice, learned counsel for the petitioner added that the statement of one Mr. Neelakandan was obtained under compulsion of the Bank Officers and admittedly, one Mr. Rajendran, who had remitted the cash for redeeming the jewels has not been examined, but his statement, dated 21.8.1998, has been taken on relied on, to record a finding against the petitioner.