A SILVEIRA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 11.12.1997, in W.P.No.17347 of 1994.

(2.) . The writ petitioner is the appellant in W.A.No.300 of 1998. Respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition are the appellants in W.A.No.843 of 1998.

(3.) . The writ petitioner joined the services of the first respondent Bank as an unpaid probationary clerk in 1944 and reached the position of Deputy General Manager at the Central Office, Madras and was due to retire on superannuation on 29.2.1988. On 27.2.1988, the petitioner was served with a letter from the third respondent placing him under suspension in terms of Regulation 12(1)(a) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' Conduct and Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976 on the ground that enquiry into the charges levelled against him on 15.2.1986 was contemplated. On the same day, the petitioner was served with another letter from the General Manager intimating him that in view of the suspension order, he is not permitted to retire by virtue of the provisions of Regulation 20(3)(c). The charge sheet, dated 15.2.1986, related to certain acts of commission and omission alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as 'the Chief, International Division, Central Office, during the period 1978-1982'. At that time, the petitioner was Assistant General Manager in the matter of Drawing Arrangement of Rupee Accounts extended to International Finance and Exchange Corporation (IFEC), Doha and Arabian Exchange and Financial Organisation (AEFO), Doha and on account of the failure of those companies, there was loss to the Bank. Originally an Inspection Committee was specially constituted by the Board on 7.1.1983 to analyse the circumstances which resulted in the loss and identify the Operational/Executive Officials of the Bank on whom responsibilities could be fixed for the loss and according to the petitioner, the Committee attributed the losses only to the then supervision and control systems in force and did not fix the responsibility on any single individual. Five other Public Sector Banks in India suffered similar losses in respect of the very same companies. The petitioner has further stated that not withstanding the Committee's Report, a show cause notice, dated 22.7.1983, was issued to the petitioner calling his explanation for the alleged irregularities/lapses observed in the Drawing Arrangements of IFEC, Doha and AEFO, Doha. The petitioner in his reply, dated 14.10.1983, refuted the allegations and pointed out the steps taken by him at every stage to protect the interest of the Bank. No action was taken against the petitioner for 2-1/2 years after the receipt of his reply and the charge sheet was served on 27.2.1986 and then the petitioner was suspended. The petitioner filed independent writ petitions challenging the suspension order and the charge memo. The disciplinary authority passed final order, dated 19.10.1992, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal, dated 4.5.1993, to the Managing Director, who is the appellate authority and he, by his order, dated 25.1.1994, set aside the order of dismissal and imposed the penalty of removal from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed writ petition No.17347 of 1994 for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of Respondents 1 and 2, dated 25.1.1994 and 19.10.1992.