G RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the services of the respondent Bank of India in the year 1981 as Subordinate Staff. He applied for India Card while he was working at Madurai Branch of the respondent bank in the year 1994. The card was issued during the month of November 1995. Later the petitioner was issued with such cards during the years 1997 and 1998. The card was used by the petitioner in violation of terms and conditions by exceeding the monetary limit and consequent delayed payment and default, which resulted in Charge Memo dated 17.12.97. By the said charge memo the petitioner was informed that he would be permitted to submit his explanation. On the same day, without waiting for any explanation, a charge sheet was issued on the ground that the petitioner has committed gross misconduct doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank in terms of para 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.96. The said paragraph reads as under:- "doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank of gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss." Further, on the same day, the second respondent appointed G.Narayanan as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. Of course, without there being any explanation called for, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report dated 28.3.2000 was submitted holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the said enquiry report, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation and the petitioner also submitted his explanation on 11.1.2000. Not satisfied with the explanation, by order dated 13.6.2000 of the second respondent, punishment of stoppage of next three increments was passed. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the first respondent which was also rejected, but the punishment of stoppage of three increments was modified as one of stoppage of two increments.

(2.) Mr.V.Illanchezian, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the respondent had taken action against the petitioner on one day by issuing the charge memo, charge sheet and appointing the enquiry officer. (2) In any case, the use of India Card over and above the monetary limit would not amount to any misconduct as while using the said card, the relationship of the petitioner and the respondent is only as customer and the bank and not as an employee and employer. In such event, the punishment cannot be imposed on the petitioner. Moreover, the entire amount availed by the petitioner over and above the ceiling limit has also been paid and there is no loss to the bank.

(3.) Mr.John for M/s Ramasubramaniam Associates, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the procedure adopted by the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings was in terms of paragraph 521(10)(a) of the Sastry Award as modified by the Desai Award in bipartite settlement dated 19.10.66 and further the memorandum of settlement dated 10.4.2002/27.5.2002. The learned counsel would further submit that merely because the petitioner had repaid the excess amount availed through India card, that will not absolve the petitioner from disciplinary proceedings.