INDIAN BANK Vs. S MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chief Justice: this writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12. 03. 2002.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) THE respondent was a clerk in the service of the appellant/bank, and he was also the Vice President of the Indian Bank Employees Union (IBEU) which had a Current Account in the same bank. The respondent was given charge sheet dated 08. 03. 1997 alleging that on 18. 01. 1996 he had opened a Savings Bank Account in the name and style of S. Madhavan, Organiser, Indian Bank Employees Union (M. L.)/s. B. A/c. No. 16270 at the Tiruppur Branch of the bank. It was further alleged that he had collected and retained 11 cheques in his capacity as Vice President of the Indian Bank Employees Union. He was Vice President of I. B. E. U only till 18. 12. 1995 when he lost the election. Hence, he should have returned the cheques to I. B. E. U. , but instead a new S. B. Account No. 16270 was opened by him on 18. 01. 1996 in the name of S. Madhavan, Organiser, I. B. E. U. (M. L. ). It was further alleged that he had managed to get collected the proceeds of the above said 11 cheques which were really payable to Indian Bank Employees Union by depositing the cheques in the aforesaid S. B. A/c. No. 16270 with Tiruppur Branch of the Bank with the ulterior motive of wrongfully enjoying the proceeds of the 11 cheques. It was alleged that he enjoyed the proceeds of the 11 cheques which were not due to the so called Indian Bank Employees Union (M. L.) but were due to the I. B. E. U. Consequently, in April 1997 a departmental enquiry was held on these charges in which the respondent was given a hearing, and on 21. 06. 1997 the Enquiry Officer submitted his Report holding that the 1st charge was not proved and all the other charges in the charge sheet were proved. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as regards charges 2,3,4, and 5 are concerned, but disagreed with his findings on the 1st charge and held that the 1st charge was also proved. However, it is alleged that he did not issue any show cause notice to the respondent in this connection. The Disciplinary Authority thereupon imposed punishment on 28. 06. 1997 by which the employee was reduced to two stages in his pay scale. The respondent-employee filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was rejected by the order dated 22. 10. 1997. Thereafter, he filed the writ petition in which the impugned order was passed.