ZONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. P. JEYACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Appeal is directed against the Order, dtd. 28/1/2022 passed in W.P.(MD) No.14277 of 2013, whereby, the punishment of "dismissal without Notice", imposed on the Writ Petitioner was modified to the punishment of "compulsory Retirement". The brief facts, which are involved in the above Appeal, are as follows:

(2.) The Writ Petitioner was originally appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 6/3/1985 in the Erode branch of the Appellant-Bank and thereafter, was re designated as Computer Operator and later was posted as Head Cashier at the Branch Office, Brough Road, Erode. Due to some financial irregularities and misappropriation in the cash transactions committed by him, he was placed under Suspension and a charge memorandum was issued on 22/8/2008. The set of charges framed are extracted hereunder:

(3.) The Respondent offered his explanation to the charges on 18/10/2008, where, apart from giving explanations, he had stated that due to high pressure of work and due to routine nature of late receipts, he has not recorded in the books of account of the Bank, which he agreed is an omission, for which he regret. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered, the Appellant Bank appointed an Enquiry Officer for conducting enquiry. The Respondent participated in the enquiry and after completing the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer by proceedings, dtd. 14/7/2009, submitted the Enquiry Report holding that the charges are proved. A second show cause Notice, dtd. 21/12/2009, was served on the Respondent along with the Report of the Enquiry Officer and his explanation was called for. The Respondent offered his explanation, pursuant to which, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as the charges proved were very grave and serious in nature. By Order, dtd. 23/1/2010, the Third Appellant/the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of "dismissal without Notice". The order of termination was passed in terms of Clause-14.6(a) of Bipartite Settlement, dtd. 10/4/2002, against which, the Respondent preferred an Appeal and the Appellate Authority also, by proceedings, dtd. 23/2/2011, rejected the Appeal confirming the Order of Termination passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Challenging the Orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dtd. 23/1/2010 and the Appellate Authority, dtd. 23/2/2011, the Respondent had filed W.P.(MD) No.14277 of 2013.