K. KANNAN Vs. INDIAN BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who served as a Branch Manager in the Respondents/Indian Bank, having suffered the punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 10.10.2003, passed by the Disciplinary Authority/R2, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority/R1 on 16.11.2005, challenges the correctness of the same before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

(2.) Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in an endeavour to assail the impugned orders, by terming the same as illegal and unjustified on the ground that there was no fair and proper enquiry proceedings conducted, would add that the respondents failed to note that, with regard to all the charges alleged against the petitioner, no evidence was produced to prove the same and that the Enquiry Officer (in short 'EO') merely relied upon the statements of M.Ws.1 and 2 viz., the Management Witnesses, who submitted their investigation reports. Besides that, even though the Presenting Officer listed out 4 witnesses on the side of the prosecution, no one was produced in the enquiry and thereby, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses in order to disprove the charges levelled against him. Further, the EO also had relied upon unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the findings of the EO, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, are perverse and bad in law as no reasonable person of any standard would come to such a conclusion. Neither the Disciplinary Authority/R2 nor the Appellate Authority/R1 independently applied their mind to the evidence available on record in a proper perspective, therefore, the impugned orders should be held to be suffering from the vice of non-application of mind.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner again reiterated his arguments by stating that the whole enquiry proceedings got vitiated due to very many defects including -