T KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges an order of punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage in the time-scale for a period of two years, with effect from May 1, 1986 dated April 30, 1986 and also simultaneous transferring the petitioner to Voimedu branch.

(2.) IT may be immediately stated that since the petitioner has retired from service the prayer of the petitioner, in so far as the prayer with regard to the order of transfer had become infructuous and as such only the question about the reduction of basic pay alone has to be considered.

(3.) THE facts are: The petitioner has been working as an appraiser/clerk/shroff at Indian Bank, Nidaman-galam branch. A charge-memo was issued to the petitioner on January 3, 1986, relating to 19 transactions which reveal that the transactions had been engineered to accommodate the petitioner with the loan amounts at cheaper rate of interest and with a view to circumvent bank's rules and guidelines governing the jewel loans to staff members and for other than agricultural purposes. It seems that the petitioner used the name of his wife Smt. T. K. Suseela and the name of his son T. K. Baskaran, who are dependants of him and also third parties as borrowers of above jewel loans. It is further stated in the said charge-memo that the above loans were raised to meet his requirements whereas in the relevant jewel loan application forms it had been declared that the loans were raised for agricultural purposes in blatant violation of directives for availing of jewel loans on cheaper rate of interest for agricultural purposes. It is further stated in the charge-memo that the above said acts of the petitioner, if it is proved, would amount to doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank and gross misconducts under Clause 19. 5 (j) of the memoranda of Bipartite settlements, 1966. The petitioner herein submitted an explanation and the departmental enquiry held on January 28, 1986 and on January 29, 1986 wherein the enquiry officer found that the charges are proved. During the said enquiry, the respondent Bank examined one witness and examined 77 documents as exhibits whereas the petitioner examined one defence witness and marked three exhibits. The disciplinary Authority concurred with the report of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proposed to award him the punishment of reduction of basic pay one stage in the time scale for a period of two years. The petitioner submitted his reply on April 26, 1986. By order dated April 30, 1986, the punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage in the time scale for a period of two years with effect from May 1, 1986 has been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the punishing authority. The petitioner challenges the order of punishment as confirmed by the appellate authority.