S GANESHRAJA Vs. DEPUTY SALT COMMISSIONER; SUPERINTENDENT OF SALT; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SALT; P S PONRATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question the order dated 08.05.2014 of the second respondent/disciplinary authority, dismissing the petitioner from service, which was confirmed by the order dated 30.10.2013 of the third respondent/appellate authority.

(2.) The petitioner joined the services of the Indian Overseas Bank as Clerk on 22.09.1982. After successive promotion, he was working as Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank and posted in various branches. When the petitioner was working as such, on 03.01.2011, based on a criminal complaint registered against him, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. On the basis of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, he was suspended from the services of the bank on 05.01.2011 as per Regulations 12 (1) (b) of Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Thereafter, on the basis of a preliminary report alleging irregularities committed by the petitioner with respect to 8 transactions, a concurrent suspension order dated 14.02.2011 was issued to the petitioner. On 23.04.2012, the bank issued a charge sheet covering 15 transactions that took place between 01.11.1998 and 25.11.2010 relating to withdrawal of amount to the tune of Rs.1,58,31,400/-, which according to the bank is a contravention of Regulations 3 (1) and 3 (3) of Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation to the charges on 30.04.2012. Having not been satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed on 18.07.2012. After conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 31.08.2013, which was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 16.09.2013. The petitioner also submitted his further explanation dated 08.10.2013 to the report of the enquiry officer in detail. Thereafter, the third respondent passed an order dated 30.10.2013 dismissing the petitioner from service. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the second respondent and it was also rejected by the second respondent on 08.05.2014. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner attacked the impugned order of dismissal on several grounds. According to the learned Senior counsel for petitioner, the impugned order of dismissal is vitiated due to the fact that the third respondent is not a competent designated authority to pass the order of dismissal. The petitioner being a Scale II Officer, it is the Deputy General Manager who is competent to pass the order of dismissal and not the third respondent, who is designated as General Manager. The learned Senior counsel for petitioner would further contend that sufficient time and opportunity has not been afforded to the petitioner during the course of enquiry. The notice for enquiry dated 07.01.2013 was sent to the petitioner for the enquiry to be held on 10.01.2013. On receipt of the same, the petitioner sought for adjournment. Inspite of the same, the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and marked certain documents on 10.01.2013 and 11.01.2013 in the absence of the petitioner. The chief examination of certain witness was done in the absence of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 01.03.2013 the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and ultimately, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 31.08.2013 to the disciplinary authority. Thus, according to the learned Senior counsel, the petitioner was not given adequate and sufficient opportunity to defend the enquiry proceedings which was not taken note of by both the disciplinary authority and appellate authority.