A KALIAPERUMAL Vs. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL) DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.V.Srinivasan, learned cousnel for M/s.N.V.S. Associates for the respondent Bank.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the charge memorandum, dated 13.4.2009. The writ petition was admitted on 23.7.2009. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted an interim stay. IN that order, the reason for granting interim stay was recorded as follows:

(3.) THE petitioner sent a reply dated 18.08.2008 denying his involvement in the matter. He also informed them that the management was nursing grouse against him as he had moved the High Court against their illegal malafide transfer. He had requested them to withdraw the memo. Notwithstanding the same, the impugned Articles of Charge was framed on 13.4.2009. In that impugned Articles of Charge, it was stated that his explanation was not convincing. THE facts remains that on 26.12.2007, he had sent a telegram from the Post Office at Porur addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director, Executive Directors and General Manager (P), Central Office. THErefore, he was accused of doing the act unbecoming of a Bank Officer and that he had failed to maintain good conduct and discipline. It was also stated that the memo, dated 5.8.2008 will form a detailed statement of allegations to the Articles of Charge. THE list of documents and the list of witnesses through whom the allegations are proposed to be substantiated were enclosed along with the Articles of Charge. THEy have listed out as many as 28 documents in support of their allegations. THEy also proposed to rely upon four witnesses. THE names of those witnesses were also mentioned. Document No.5 related to a letter sent by the Director of Detective Eyes, Chennai addressed to the General Manager, FGMO, Chennai. Document No.28 is the confidential report sent by the private detective agency, i.e., Detective Eyes, Chennai. THE fourth witness was the Director of Detective Eyes, Chennai.