M KASI Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the service of the respondent-bank as Clerk-cum-Godown Keepar in the year 1960. He was promoted as an Officer and posted to Chetpet Branch on April 15, 1972. He was subsequently transferred as acting Accountant to Thousand Lights Branch at Madras and later transferred to Pondicherry. He was promoted as Manager in the month of September 1975. In December 1979, one T. K. Subramaniam was posted as Branch Manager, Pondicherry and the petitioner was served with an order of transfer as Manager, Chengalpattu Branch during February 1980. Subsequently the order of transfer was cancelled and the petitioner was served with an order of suspension dated March 24, 1980. Certain allegations were set out in the order of suspension and it was stated that if proved they would constitute misconduct. A Memorandum of Articles of Charge dated February 24, 1982 was issued to the petitioner. It was alleged that he was guilty of misconduct under Regulations 3 (1), 14 (1) and 15 (1) of the Indian Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. He was also charged with misconduct punishable under Regulation 4 of the Indian Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. A statement of allegations of misconduct, on the basis of which charges were framed, was appended to the Memorandum. With reference to Regulation 3 (1), ten instances were set out wherein he had acted beyond his powers and violated the prescribed norms and procedures, thereby contravening Regulation 3 (1 ). They were grouped together under charge No. 1. Similarly, Charge No. IV was with reference to grant of temporary overdrafts to a particular constituent, whose accounts had already been irregular. That was also brought under Regulation 3 (1 ). Charge No. II was under Regulation 14 (1) while Charge No. III was under regulation 15 (1 ).

(2.) THE petitioner sent a reply dated March 13, 1982 containing his explanations. After setting out in the beginning that during his tenure as Manager of the Branch firm September 1975 to March 1980, the discharged his duties with integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence he stated that he had strained for the growth and expansion of deposits as well as the business of the branch. He furnished certain statistics to show that the business of the branch had grown considerably because of his efforts. Before proceeding to give his explanations with regard to the specific instances, he stated as follows :-

(3.) A communication was sent to him on March 24, 1982 to the effect that there was a mistake in the dates set out in Charge No. II and it was substituted by the Charge set out in that communication. He was called upon to submit his explanation in defence of Charge No. II within 15 days from the date of receipt of the communication. By reply dated April 4, 1982, the petitioner informed the Disciplinary Authority that he had nothing more to add than what he had already started in his reply dated March 13, 1982. The respondents were not satisfied with the explanations offered and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. An Officer of the Vigilance Department of the Bank was also appointed as Presenting Officer. On May 25, 1982 a Memorandum of Additional Charges was issued to which the petitioner sent a reply on June 18, 1982. On November 2, 1982 the petitioner was informed about the change of the Enquiry Officer. He was informed by letter dated November 10, 1982 that the enquiry would commence on December 6, 1982.