S RAMASWAMY Vs. MANAGEMENT OF CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge the order of the second respondent appellate authority dated 02. 02. 1998 confirming the order of the third respondent dated 31. 5. 1997 wherein and by which the petitioner was dismissed from service.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as the Agriculture Extension Officer in the respondent Bank on 02. 8. 1982. While he was working as Agriculture Extension Officer at Tirumangalam Branch, he was issued with an order of suspension dated 25. 10. 1995, which was followed by a charge sheet dated 31. 01. 1996. There were three charges in the charge sheet. The first charge contains four sub-charges. The substance of the charges under Articles 1. I and III relates to his alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from various parties for processing and sanctioning of Intensive Rural Development Programme Loans [for short, 'irdp']. The charge 1. II (a) and (b) relates to the demand of commission and bribe from two parties, viz. , one from the dealer and the other from the borrower respectively towards tractor loan. Charge No. 2 relates to the allegation of receipt of money from a borrower towards tractor loan and misappropriation of the same. The party concerned in charge 1. II (a) and charge 2 are one and the same person, viz. , Raju Thevar. Charge No. 3 relates to causing issuance of anonymous printed notice in filthy language with a view to tarnish the image of the Bank, its staff and customers. The charge sheet contains list of 22 witnesses and 11 documents. Since the documents in support of the charges were not furnished, the petitioner denied the charges in an one line explanation. An Enquiry Officer was appointed in terms of Regulation 6 (2) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 [for short, 'regulations'] and also a Presenting Officer was appointed. In the departmental enquiry, only 12 witnesses were examined and two Management witnesses, viz. , M. W. 10 and M. W. 11, were declared hostile and even the witness M. W. 12 went back on his statement and stated in the enquiry that the signatures / thumb impressions in the complaint statements were obtained from the officers under false promise of grant of loan. The above said three witnesses were illiterate persons and they also denied that they have never made any complaint with the respondent Bank regarding the demand of bribe by the petitioner and have also stated that they never paid any money to the petitioner. The Presenting Officer himself declared M. W. 10 and M. W. 11 as hostile and cross-examined them. M. W. 1 was the Investigation Officer and M. Ws. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were Officers of the Bank. Only M. Ws. 4, 5 and 10 to 12 are outsiders. On the side of the petitioner, he had examined one Sivan Rajan, who was supposed to have given oral complaint to the Bank. On the basis of the evidence, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. By a letter dated 21. 12. 1996, the petitioner was given a memo to submit his explanation against the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer and notwithstanding the petitioner's explanation, by an order dated 31. 5. 1997 passed by the third respondent, the petitioner was dismissed from service and his further appeal was rejected by the second respondent by proceedings dated 02. 02. 1998 as stated already. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of Mr. K. M. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. R. Raman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the records.