P. SUDALAIMUTHU Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order of punishment of dismissal imposed against the petitioner on the charge of securing employment in the respondent-Bank by concealing material information about his educational qualification.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent invited applications for the post of part-time House Keeper by advertisement dated 11.6.2008. The petitioner, in response to the said advertisement, applied on 23.6.2008 along with the required particulars for the said post. When the minimum educational qualification was a second standard pass or eighth standard fail, it appears that the petitioner, having passed eighth standard and belonging to Hindu Kuravan community, a Scheduled Caste, enclosed the copies of community certificate and school certificate along with his application mentioning that he had passed only fifth standard and also submitted the proof in support of the same. Therefore, the allegation is that the petitioner, having passed eighth standard, has concealed deliberately to mention the same in order to secure employment by mentioning that he has passed only fifth standard. After the selection process was over, the petitioner was provisionally shortlisted for appointment to the post of part-time House Keeper in the respondent-Bank and he was also issued with a communication on 19.8.2008 to call on the second respondent with the original letter with four passport size photographs and thereafter the petitioner was issued with the letter of appointment on 20.8.2008 appointing him as part-time House Keeper in one-third scale wages with a basic pay of Rs.1,353.33p at the Melapalayam branch. After joining duty, he was kept on probation for a period of six months and thereafter his services were confirmed. In the meanwhile, the first respondent called for applications from prospective candidates by another advertisement dated 26.9.2008 for the post of Peon/Hamal in the respondent-Bank. The petitioner was also one among the candidates who made an application in response to the advertisement dated 26.9.2008 for the post of Peon/Hamal by declaring that he had passed eighth standard. While applying for the post of part-time House Keeper, since he had already declared to have passed only fifth standard, the respondents, finding this discrepancy, issued a charge memo dated 26.8.2010 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation for concealment of material information. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation stating that although he had passed eighth standard, a pass in fifth standard being sufficient for the post of House Keeper, considering his socio-economic status, the respondent-Bank was kind enough to offer him employment to the post of House Keeper. From the date of appointment as House Keeper, he has been working sincerely to the satisfaction of his employer without giving any room whatsoever. However, since the basic educational qualification for the post of part time House Keeper was a pass in second standard, the petitioner, out of sheer innocence, had thought that a declaration of pass in fifth standard would get him employment, but there was no intention muchless wilful intention to suppress or conceal the factum of his pass in eighth standard. On this basis, in his explanation, the petitioner prayed for dropping of the charge. The disciplinary authority, finding it difficult to accept the explanation offered by the petitioner, ordered for an enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer who also, after completion of the enquiry, finding that the petitioner had knowingly concealed the material information about his educational qualification and not submitted any extenuating and mitigating factors, concluded that the charges were proved beyond doubt. With this finding, the enquiry officer sent his report dated 24.2.2011 to the respondent-Bank.

(3.) Continuing his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent, the Chief Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Union Bank of India, without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances which led the petitioner to apply for the higher post, had wrongly and erroneously imposed a deadly punishment, snatching away the livelihood of the petitioner, dismissing him from service for the gross misconduct, although several other lesser punishments have been contemplated under the rules. Adding further, it has been the consistent stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a matter of record that the petitioner has concealed his original educational qualification at the time of sending his application for the post of part time House Keeper along with the requisite particulars mentioning that he had passed only fifth standard. But that does not mean that he has wilfully suppressed any material that has led to any financial loss to the respondent-Bank. When it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner, from the date of joining service, has not given any room for misconduct or any complaint whatsoever, by taking into account the socio-economic status of the petitioner, who belongs to Hindu Kuravan community, which is notified as Scheduled Caste, the second respondent/disciplinary authority, in all fairness, he pleaded, could have imposed lesser punishment other than dismissal. But unfortunately, the disciplinary authority, the second respondent herein, even after taking note of the extenuating and mitigating factors placed by the petitioner for imposition of lesser punishment for the proved misconduct, has arbitrarily imposed the grave punishment of dismissal from service, resultantly, the petitioner has lost his livelihood. On this basis, he prayed for interference with the quantum of punishment.