S. RATHNASWAMY Vs. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the order of dismissal dismissing the petitioner from first respondent's service, he has filed the present writ petition to quash the said order.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: - The petitioner joined the service of the first respondent bank on 17.1.1958 as cashier. He was promoted as Head Cashier in the year 1974 and subsequently promoted as Chief Cashier on 26.12.1979. While he was discharging his duties, he received a show cause notice from the first respondent why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for certain alleged acts of commissions and omissions. He has submitted his explanation denying all the charges levelled against him and requested personal hearing. As per the Service Rules, the petitioner is entitled to have the assistance of a defence representative in the domestic enquiry. Hence he authorised one S. Kaliappan, J.M.C. Madurai Kamaraj University Branch of State Bank of India to be his representative to conduct the enquiry on his behalf. His representative asked for certain documents. The first respondent bank refused to furnish some of the relevant documents asked by his representative in the course of enquiry on 19.11.1982. The enquiry was commenced only after two years which itself will vitiate the entire proceedings. When the enquiry was posted for regular hearing on 13.12.1982, the petitioner wanted an adjournment on the ground that the defence representative was sick and laid up with Typhoid. His representative also sent a telegram requesting for adjournment. The enquiry officer unreasonably refused his request. After refusing the request of the petitioner for adjournment, the enquiry officer set the petitioner ex parte and ultimately found him guilty of all the charges. The first respondent has also accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and dismissed the petitioner from service by an order, dated 11.5.1983. Against the order of termination, he filed an appeal under Sec. 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act before the competent authority. The said authority by order dated 21.3.1984 in TSE Appeal No. 54 of 1983 set aside the order of termination passed against him. The first respondent instead of reinstating the petitioner filed W.P.No. 6103 of 1984 challenging the order of the authority under the Shops and Establishments Act. In view of he decisions of the Supreme Court taking the view that Shop Act appeal is not maintainable against Nationalised Bank, this Court allowed W.P.No. 6103 of 1984. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition challenging the order of dismissal.

(3.) The first respondent filed a counter affidavit disputing all the averments made by the petitioner. The counter affidavit runs as follows: - It is contended that the dismissal order was issued by the first respondent after duly constituted and proper disciplinary proceedings and a domestic enquiry were conducted in respect of certain very serious acts of misconduct while the petitioner was in the service of the Bank and on his being found guilty thereunder. The said disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the service rules applicable to the officers of the bank and observing all the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry found the petitioner guilty under the charges covered by the charge -sheet issued to him. The Chief General Manager after considering the report of the enquiry officer accepted the findings recorded by him and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The dismissal order is valid and binding on the petitioner. Since the dismissal order is based on oral and documentary evidence, this Court exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not re -appraise the same. It is also submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been considered and rejected. In such circumstances, according to the first respondent, there is no merit in the writ petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.