R CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the same in these two writ petitions. In W. P. No. 24476 of 2007 the petitioner is challenging the charge sheet framed against him by the third respondent dated 18. 4. 2007 along with the statement of imputations. In W. P. No. 24763 of 2007 the petitioner is challenging the interim charge memo dated 30. 11. 2006/4. 12. 2006 framed by the third respondent against the petitioner along with the statement of imputation of misconduct.

(2.) THE petitioner has joined as a Clerk in the Indian Bank in the year 1976 and he was promoted as Officer in 1987 and was appointed as Branch Manager at Tirupporur in December, 1999 wherein he worked in that capacity till June, 2002, when he was shifted to Mapped Branch. There was a C. B. I. raid in the house of the petitioner on 28. 9. 2002 and an FIR was lodged on 26. 9. 2002 on the file of ACB Chennai. While he was working in Mapped Branch, the second respondent by order dated 22. 8. 2002 suspended the petitioner pending investigation and according to the petitioner, he continued to be under suspension till date and as per the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act,1981, he is entitled to the subsistence allowance. However, he is paid only 50% of salary. 2 (a ). He was issued a show-cause notice on 24. 2. 2003 by the third respondent in respect of certain irregularities said to have been committed by him during his tenure as Branch Manager at Tirupporur for which he sent a reply on 10. 4. 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that CBI has completed its investigation and charge sheet has been laid before the Special Court for CBI Cases/ix Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in C. C. No. 52 to 60 of 2004 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There was another criminal case filed in Kancheepuram in which charges have been framed in C. C. No. 227 of 2003 under sections 409, 477 (A) and 420 IPC and the said case is pending trial on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. Thereafter, after 2= years, the third respondent has issued a charge memo dated 9. 8. 2005. In respect of the said disciplinary proceedings, he approached this Court by filing W. P. No. 33967 of 2005 and W. P. No. 60 of 2006 and according to the petitioner, there was an interim stay granted which was also made absolute. He has also filed another W. P. No. 4323 of 2007 for granting full salary during the period of suspension which is continuing for the past 4 years and 11 months. The petitioner would state that after four years and 10 months the third respondent has issued the impugned charge memo dated 30. 11. 2006 which is the subject matter of challenge in W. P. No. 24763 of 2007 and the charges are relating to the grant of five loan accounts. According to the petitioner, he has sent his explanation to the said charges on 14. 12. 2006 an there is no reply. 2 (b ). In the meantime, the third respondent has issued another charge memo dated 18. 4. 2007 impugned in W. P. No. 24476 of 2007 containing four charges which are also relating to the grant of loans. According to the petitioner, the list of witnesses was not given to him and the inordinate delay in issuing charge memo vitiates the proceedings and he has not received subsistence allowance and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated as per the judgment of the Supreme Court. The petitioner would also state that no charge can be made implicating the petitioner. The petitioner was informed on 30. 5. 2007 by the third respondent that the Inquiring Authority and the Presenting Officer were nominated. The Inquiring Authority by letter dated 6. 6. 2007 directed the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 18. 6. 2007 and the petitioner was given a copy of 28 documents and the enquiry was adjourned to 2. 7. 2007. In the meantime, on 22. 6. 2007, the petitioner has requested the Inquiring Authority to provide 19 documents. When he attended for enquiry on 2. 7. 2007, the petitioner was given five documents and according to the petitioner, most of them are not related to the charges framed. 2 (c ). The petitioner has represented to the Inquiring Authority, as per the Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 that any question that arises has to be referred to the Board for its decision and the Inquiring Authority has no power to refuse the documents and therefore, according to the petitioner, participating in the enquiry would become futile and therefore, he has not participated in the enquiry thereafter. In respect of the charges dated 30. 11. 2006/4. 12. 2006, the petitioner has received a letter from the Circle Officer, Kancheepuram dated 14. 7. 2007 enclosing the findings of the Investigating Authority holding that all the charges are proved and at that point of time, he approached this Court by filing W. P. No. 24763 of 2007. The petitioner has challenged the charge memo in both the writ petitions on various grounds including that the charges are arbitrary and illegal; the charges are not specific; and the charges do not indicate any loss to the Bank by virtue of loans granted by the petitioner, that the petitioner has not been paid subsistence allowance, that the failure to produce documents asked for by the petitioner will make the entire proceedings vitiated, that when the entire loan accounts were closed as fully settled, the Bank is estopped from reopening the case after lapse of six years, that the petitioner is entitled to the inspection of original documents which is not allowed and copies supplied have no relevance to the charges and they are not authenticated, that the fifth respondent is acting with personal bias against the petitioner and that the proceedings are arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE third respondent, Assistant General manager, Indian Bank Circle Office, Kancheepuram has filed separate counter affidavits. While the facts relating to the case are not disputed, it is the specific case of the third respondent that the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act is not applicable to the petitioner and it is governed by the Indian Bank Officer/employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation Act, 1976 and therefore, the subsistence allowance has been paid in accordance with the said Act. It is also stated that criminal cases have nothing to do with the disciplinary proceedings and charges framed against the petitioner. It is the case of the third respondent that various misconducts committed by the petitioner have been surfacing one after another and hence, the Bank had to issue charge sheet and see that the domestic enquiry was completed and the Enquiry Officer's report has been furnished to the petitioner calling for his comments. It was at that point of time, having realized that he has no other valid points, the petitioner has chosen to file the writ petitions. It is also the case of the third respondent that the bank had no intention to harass the petitioner. Further, the charge memo dated 18. 4. 2007 had to be issued since the petitioner had committed various misconducts and misappropriated huge amounts of the Bank and the charges levelled against the petitioner are very grave in nature. In respect of charge sheet dated 18. 4. 2007, which is impugned in W. P. No. 24476 of 2007, the petitioner was given time to submit his explanation till 3. 5. 2007. Since the petitioner requested some more time by his letter dated 1. 5. 2007, time was extended upto 8. 5. 2007. However on 4. 5. 2007, the petitioner submitted that he cannot offer his reply since some of the exhibits mentioned in the charge sheet are only Xerox copies and based on the said letter, time was extended up to 22. 5. 2007 as a last chance. On 21. 5. 2007, the petitioner requested for copies of some of the documents and the same were furnished on 22. 5. 2007 and thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply on 25. 5. 2007 denying the charges. 3 (a ). Mr. Mariappan, the 4th respondent in W. P. No. 24763 of 2007, was appointed as Inquiring Authority in respect of the charges dated 30. 11. 2006/4. 12. 2006 and Mr. Valmikinathan, the 5th respondent in the writ petitions was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Due to the administrative reasons, the appointment of Mr. Mariappan as Inquiring Authority was cancelled and in his place, Mr. R. Chakrapani was appointed as Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority has given notice to conduct the preliminary enquiry on 18. 6. 2007. On that day, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiring Authority and admitted that he has received all documents and understood the charges and pleaded not guilty. The petitioner has also admitted that he was satisfied with the documents provided by the Management. It is in order to protract the enquiry proceedings, by letter dated 22. 6. 2007, the petitioner has sought for 19 documents, which are totally irrelevant and not connected with the charges. On 2. 7. 2007, the Presenting Officer has explained as to how the documents are not relevant to the charge sheet and some of the documents had already been furnished. For instance, in respect of charge No. 3, by typographical error, the amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been mentioned as Rs. 4,00,000/-, however, the amount is correctly mentioned as Rs. 40,000/- in words. The petitioner has adamantly represented that the charge is vague. The counter affidavit also states that in respect of each of the charges there are substantial records. It is also stated that the request of the petitioner to produce various records on the face of it is made only to prolong the enquiry and it is a dilatory measure and there are no such rules or procedures for receipt of cash, however, the petitioner insisted that such rules must be produced. It is also the case of the third respondent that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and the enquiry was conducted not in hasty manner.