MUNEESAN V Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was proceeded with disciplinary proceedings while he was working in the East Mada Street Branch of the respondent bank during the year 1991- 92. By charge sheet dated December 12, 1991, the following charges were framed against the petitioner viz., (1) that he had dishonestly and fraudulently discharged and handed over bill of lading relating to IDBF 11/91 for Rs. 5,95,000 to Peacock Polymers (P) Ltd., one of the clients of the respondent-bank on October 29,1991 without receiving payment therefor; (2) that he had addressed a memo dated August 26, 1991 to foreign exchange department to debit the branch account for IDBF 5/91 and 6/ 91 stating that there was sufficient balance in the customers account, whereas actually the account was showing debit balance. The imputation further alleged that the petitioner had knowingly mislead the bank and made a false statement to foreign exchange department of cathedral branch thereby being a party to the cheating by the borrower.

(2.) The petitioner was also issued with additional charge sheet dated May 19, 1992 with five imputations viz.,.

(3.) Based on the above charge sheets, an inquiry was ordered and the petitioner was given opportunity to defend the charges. The inquiry officer, insofar as the first imputation of the charge sheet dated December 12, 1991, even though found that the charge of discharge and handing over of bill of lading was proved, held that there was no fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner in discharging and handing over the bill of lading. Accordingly, the inquiry officer found the said charge partly proved. Insofar as the second imputation of chargesheet dated December 12, 1991, the inquiry officer found the same as proved. The imputations 1, 2 and 3 of the additional charge sheet dated May 19, 1992 were held only as partly proved and imputations 4 and 5 were found fully proved. The findings of the inquiry were forwarded to the third respondent, the disciplinary authority who by order dated July 30, 1994, while agreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer in respect of the second imputation charge sheet dated December 12, 1991 and 4th and 5th imputations of additional charge sheet dated May 19, 1992, disagreed with the findings in regard to the other imputations as to the findings of the inquiry officer that the charges were only partly proved. Holding so, the disciplinary authority found all the charges were proved and accordingly ordered punishment of dismissal. Questioning the said order the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the second respondent, the appellate authority by order dated January 12, 1995. Challenging those orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.