S RENGARAJAN Vs. SRIRANGAM JANOPAKARA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed under the first respondent bank as its secretary with effect from 17th October, 1953. On 16th May, 1954, the Board of Directors framed certain charges against him and pending enquiry kept him under suspension. In response to a show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanations on 19th May, 1954, and 24th May, 1954. On 10th June, 1954 at 12 noon he was informed that the Board of Directors would hold an enquiry at 6 p. m. There was a controversy as to whether the petitioner was actually present at the enquiry. By a resolution of that date the petitioner was found to be guilty of all the charges and he was removed from service. This order was communicated to him on 12th June 1954. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order under Section 41 (2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. The appeal in the first instance was allowed on the ground that the Board of Directors had held no enquiry, and that the charges were not borne out by the evidence. Against the appellate order the Bank successfully applied to this court in W. P. No. 200 of 1956. This Court, while making the rule absolute, observed that in effect the additional Commissioner had to rehear the appeal and dispose of it according to law. By his revised order dated 8th May 1959, the Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal. This petition is directed against the order of the Additional commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

(2.) THREE points have been urged in support of this petition: (1) The proceedings of the Board of directors culminating in the removal of the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice; (2) no evidence was recorded at the enquiry as is required by Section 41 (1) and the findings of the Board of directors were, therefore, not based on evidence; and (3) in any case, the Additional commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in taking additional evidence in disposing of the appeal on that basis.

(3.) UNDER the first point it is said that out of thirteen directors of the Board, two had admittedly given statements in support of the charges. It appears to be also a fact that two other directors including the ad hoc president gave additional evidence before the Commissioner. In such circumstances the argument is that these directors were liable to be charged with bias and at any rate their participation in the enquiry was likely to raise the petitioner's apprehension as to whether he could at all have an impartial and objective enquiry and decision. A further point also is made that since the statements of the two directors were taken behind the petitioner's back and he was not supplied with copies thereof and as only a short time was given on 10th June, 1954 to get ready for his defence, he has had no reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges. It seems to me that every one of these contentions is well founded.