POTU SRINIVAS Vs. GIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for the records calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dtd. 8/9/2011 and quash the same and for a consequential direction, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with attendant service benefits.

(2.) The facts of the case in a nutshell: The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer in the respondent corporation on 29/1/1992 and posted at Hyderabad. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to a newly opened branch Visakhapatnam in the year 1995 as Branch Head. Being the newly opened branch, the petitioner worked hard by way of marketing and developed the business of the branch to Rs.40.00 crores. Later in the year 1997, the petitioner was promoted a Senior Executive and subsequently in the year 1997, the petitioner was posted as Branch head at Hyderabad. The petitioner developed the business of the branch by good marketing strategy from Rs.40.00 crores to 80 crores. While working at Hyderabad branch, the petitioner received consolation prize for the period 2002-2003 for customer service on all India Basis. Even since his appointment, the petitioner has had an unblemished record of service with devotion to duty and discharged his duties sincerely and honestly to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and gave no room for anybody to complain.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of termination has been passed without holding any enquiry, as contemplated under Rule 25 of GICHFL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2008), before imposing major penalty. The entire set of charges framed against the petitioner is biased and arbitrary for the reason that the petitioner was only looking after the development of business and all the other concerned departments like recovery and accounts departments were involved in making entries and disbursing the loans and recovery and accounts departments were headed by senior executives namely S.R.Ravi and C.H Sai Babu. The petitioner was not directly responsible for the mistakes committed in the recovery / accounts department in preparing statement of accounts. However, the petitioner alone is imposed with the punishment of termination of service. On the other hand, the said S.R.Ravi was given promotion as Area Manager. Hence, the impugned order is exfacie discriminatory and illegal.