V S R KRISHNA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proceedings being the subject matter of this writ petition has a checkered history of about two decades and even now does not appear to have reached a finality. The petitioner was originally employed as an Officer in the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. , on 23/5/1979. He was charge-sheeted on 17/9/1983 on certain allegations. According to the petitioner, without holding an enquiry, his services were terminated by giving three months' salary in lieu of three months' notice. His appeal before the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act was allowed and the termination was set aside. The Bank filed W. P. No. 6379 of 1985 challenging the said order. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Bank merged with Punjab National Bank on 18/12/1986 and the Punjab National Bank stepped into the shoes of the writ petitioner. The writ petition was finally dismissed on 21/2/1992.

(2.) ON receiving a communication from the Bank calling upon him to join duty, the petitioner joined duty on 29. 5. 1992. However, on the same day, he was suspended pending enquiry. The petitioner submitted a letter of resignation on 24. 6. 1992 followed by a reminder on 28. 12. 1992. According to the petitioner, there was no reply either accepting or rejecting the request for resignation. A charge memo was issued on 22. 10. 1993 resurrecting the earlier allegations for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 7. 12. 1993. The petitioner would state that though an enquiry was purported to be held, no witness was examined and only documents were marked as exhibits. The petitioner would also state that vital documents were suppressed and not produced. However, the enquiry was held to have been completed and the petitioner submitted his defence statement.

(3.) OF the two charges, the enquiry officer held that the first charge was proved and part of the second charge was also held as proved. According to the petitioner, he had raised objections of delay in the initiation of proceedings and also as the High Court did not give any liberty specifically to re-start the proceedings again, the proceedings were not valid. But the enquiry officer left those issues to be decided by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation on the enquiry officer's report by letter dated 16. 4. 1994. By his letter dated 16. 4. 1994, the petitioner requested time for 15 days; but without any reply to his request, an order was issued on 26. 4. 1994 dismissing him from service. In passing the said order, the third respondent had disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer with reference to part of the second charge finding the petitioner not guilty. The disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty of the entire second charge.