T D THOMSON Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an employee of Indian Overseas Bank, has filed this writ petition for quashing the order of dismissal dated 9.8.1999 passed by the third respondent which has been confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 24.2.2000 and has sought for a further direction to reinstate him with all back wages.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a clerk under the respondent bank. On 28.6.1997, charge sheet was issued by the Deputy Chief Officer, which is as follows :- . . . CHARGE SHEET: It is reported that as an employee of the bank, while working as Clerk at our Mount Road Branch, you have committed certain acts and omissions constituting misconducts within the purview of clauses 17.5,(d), (e), (f), (j), 17.7(a), (b), (c), (d) and (j) of the Bi-partite Settlement dated 14.12.66 between the bank and its workmen as amended up to date and para 17(i) of circular memo ref.7 (f) 131 of 1994-95 dated 16.3.95 on VI Bi-Partite Settlement and for which you are charge sheeted as follows: Statement of imputations of misconduct:

(3.) On receipt of the aforesaid charge sheet, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Deputy Chief Officer/ the disciplinary authority, calling for certain documents such as copies of Memo issued to various staff members regarding punctuality during 1995-96, office order regarding allocation of work for officials and attendance register between 1989-1993. However, the Chief Manager gave a reply that those documents cannot be made available as they are not required for the purpose of the enquiry. Even though the petitioner did not submit any reply, the disciplinary authority considered necessary to inquire into the truth of the allegations. Enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of all the charges. Subsequently, an order of dismissal was passed by the third respondent which has been confirmed in appeal by the second respondent.