D. THOMAS FRANCO RAJENDRA DEV Vs. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners have filed these two writ petitions challenging the order of the first respondent, who is the disciplinary authority and Circle Development Officer, State Bank of India, Chennai, dated 27.09.2012 and seeks to set aside the same.

(2.) BY the impugned notice, dated 27.09.2012, the two petitioners were informed that in terms of Rule 68(l)(i) of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, it was decided by the appropriate authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against them. Accordingly, they were forwarded three annexures containing Articles of charge as Annexure-I, statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the articles of charge as Annexure-II and the list of documents and witnesses in support of articles of charge as Annexure-III. The petitioners were directed to give their statement of defence if any within 15 days. In the imputation of misconduct in Annexure-II, it was stated that the petitioners on 28.08.2012 had instigated officers of the Bank to hold demonstrations within the bank's premises/ compound at the local head office, Chennai. They also shouted slogans. The petitioners themselves have participated in these demonstrations and shouted slogans. This behaviour on their part had disturbed the peace within the bank's premises and there was hindrance to bank's working and disturbance in the regular business activity of the bank. It was further stated that instead of protecting the bank's interest and guiding the other officers of the Bank, they wrongfully instigated the other officers of the bank to misbehave by shouting slogans and demonstrating with an intention to disturb peace, disrupt bank's operations and discouraged bank's officers from performing their lawful duties with ulterior motive to lower the image of the bank in the eyes of the customer and the public at large. They had also organized and designed the demonstration with deliberate intention to tarnish the image of the bank which they were required to protect and enhance as officers of the bank.

(3.) THESE two writ petitions when they came up for admission on 14.12.2012, it was represented by the counsel for the bank that the enquiry which was fixed on 17.12.2012 will be postponed by three more days and the matter was adjourned to 18.12.2012. Subsequently, on 19.12.2012, Mr.K.M.vijayan, learned Senior Counsel informed this court that in the light of the order passed by the Bombay High Court, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the bank can be postponed. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the Bank informed that if any request is made, then the same will be considered by the bank. But, however, the Senior counsel for the petitioner stated that since a request has been made before this court, there need not be any further request. It was thereafter, the learned Judge who heard the matter directed postponement of the enquiry till 10.01.2013 and the matter was directed to be listed on 09.01.2013. The respondent bank was directed to file a counter. However, when the matter was finally listed on 21.01.2013, Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior counsel informed that a Mediator has been appointed, who is looking into the issue in Mumbai and the matter was likely to come up on 25.01.2013 and therefore, the matter can be adjourned. But, the learned senior counsel for the respondents bank submitted that the disciplinary action initiated has nothing to do with the mediation. He had also produced a copy of the minutes, dated