BOARD OF DIRECTORS Vs. N SOMASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court dated 31. 03. 2004 made in W. P. No. 19121 of 2003, the appellants preferred the present appeal.

(2.) THE material facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of the appeal go as follows:-The respondent has joined as a Junior Officer (Technical) with the appellant in the year 1982 and promoted as a Branch Manager in the year 1994. While the respondent was working as Branch Manager in Ambattur Branch of the appellants, he was served with a charge memo dated 17. 06. 1999 for certain lapses alleged to have committed by him in approving/recommending loan to one M/s Lucky Auto Tech in the year 1996. As the respondent was not having any material to submit his explanation to the charges, sought for certain documents from the appellants. He was allowed to peruse some documents and some other documents have not been furnished to him. Ultimately, without any explanation being filed by the respondent, the enquiry was conducted and concluded by finding that out of 17 charges framed, 6 charges were proved and 9 other charges were not proved and two other charges were left to be decided by the disciplinary authority. After furnishing the Enquiry Officer's report and obtaining explanation from the respondent, the disciplinary authority held that charges No. 7, 13 and 14, which were not found proved by the enquiry officer were also found to be proved and on that basis, passed the order as follows:-

(3.) AGGRIEVED by that order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the first appellant on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted; the same is contrary to the principles of natural justice; that none of the charges levelled against him was proved by the Management by examining any witness; that the documents relied on by the Management has not been marked through witnesses as required by the Service rules and thus the respondent was denied the valuable opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses and explaining the documents to prove his innocence and that the imposition of penalty is based on no evidence and the enquiry is farce in nature.