C. ASHOK KUMAR Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the punishment order passed by the respondent dated 24.11.2009, by which the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of bringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner has also sought for a consequential direction to direct the respondent to restore his pay with all consequential benefits.

(2.) (a) The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition are that when the petitioner was working as part time employee in the Anna Salai Branch of the respondent Bank, he was placed under suspension by order dated 26.7.2008. Thereafter, a charge memo dated 13.1.2009 was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol on 18.7.2008; that he committed theft of the Office property and concealed the same with an intention to remove the same at a later point of time and empty liquor bottles were also found concealed in the false ceiling of the Ladies Dining Room on the third floor of the Bank Building, apart from other expensive plumbing materials such as taps etc. were also found to have been removed and therefore, the petitioner has caused wilful damage to the property of the Bank, committed gross misconduct, within the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation 3 (j) and 3(m) of the Canara Bank Service Code. (b) The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. The Management of the respondent Bank appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges and a Presenting Officer was also appointed. The petitioner was permitted to engage the services of a defence representative to defend him in the domestic enquiry. After the oral enquiry was concluded, both the petitioner as well as the Management have submitted their written brief raising all contentions. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dated 9.6.2009, holding that the petitioner was guilty of the allegation that he was under the influence of alcohol on that particular day. (c) As regards the concealment of the property of the Bank, the enquiry officer held that the charge is not proved. Similarly, the charge regarding the loss of plumbing items was also held to be not proved. The disciplinary authority while forwarding the copy of the report of the enquiry offer has also enclosed his tentative findings, where he had disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his further explanation. (d) The petitioner on receipt of the tentative findings, by letter dated 15.09.2009, informed the Deputy General Manager, stating that the disciplinary authority has taken a stand that he does not concur with the findings of the enquiry officer, however, the disciplinary authority has not rejected the findings and he would wait till the receipt of the second show cause notice and requested the disciplinary authority to clarify whether the findings of the enquiry officer have been rejected in toto and whether the findings of the disciplinary authority is tentative or conclusive. (e) It appears that there was no reply to the said communication, but the petitioner by proceedings dated 28.10.2009, was informed that the Management proposes to impose the punishment of "bringing down to a lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages" and he was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on4.11.2009 at 10.00 a.m. to state his objections to the punishment proposed. The petitioner appeared for the personal hearing and reiterated his stand. Thereafter, by the impugned proceedings, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of "bringing down to a lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect". Challenging the same, the above Writ Petition has been filed.

(3.) IT is further submitted that the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, virtually pre -decided the issue by holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges, which is in total violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel submitted that the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer has not been adhered to and the findings of the disciplinary authority in straight away differing without issuing notice to the petitioner is gross violation of principles of natural justice. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of S.P.MALHOTRA v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK reported in (2013) 6 SCC 251. Further, it is submitted that there is no legal evidence to establish that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol or that the petitioner was guilty of theft of property of the Bank.