S RAMAMURTHY Vs. CHAIRMAN COMMON CADRE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner sought for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the first respondent made in No. 7656/07 PACB dated 31. 10. 2006, whereby the petitioner was terminated from service and also for reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all backwages.

(2.) THE Court heard the learned counsel on either side.

(3.) ADVANCING his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as salesman in the second respondent bank in the year 1979, that he was also promoted as Clerk and subsequently as Assistant Secretary in 1992 and subsequently he was promoted as Secretary in the second respondent bank. At the time of Audit inspection made in the year 2003-04, as per the Audit Report, certain irregularities were found in this connection and charge memo was issued for the alleged irregularities, that the petitioner has sanctioned loan to the members more than the value of land and without sufficient documents and also that sanctioned loan without any resolution and have not obtained prior permission from the higher officials and prepared focus records regarding with issuing loans and misused his wife's savings bank account and thereby caused loss to the bank to the tune of Rs. 1. 16 lakhs. Charge memo was served upon the petitioner. He gave detailed explanation, but the respondents have not considered the same and appointed domestic enquiry officer who in turn conducted enquiry and in that enquiry, the petitioner has participated and also made a request to furnish relevant documents enabling him to defend the case. But the domestic officer had not furnished the same, but he has not allowed the petitioner to go through the records, but on the other hand he acted in favour of the respondents. Under such circumstances, a written request was made to the first respondent that the enquiry officer should be immediately changed, but that was not done. Further, all the charges were found against him as a result of the said domestic enquiry and further the first respondent has issued the second show cause notice. But without giving reasonable opportunity for submitting his explanation, the first respondent has passed an order of termination against him.