P VAIYAPURI Vs. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REVIEWING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an Assistant Manager in the respondents-Bank. On December 22, 1999, the petitioner was suspended from duty on the ground that he has exceeded the Managerial Discretionary Limit while sanctioning loan. The suspension was followed by a charge memo, dated January 24,2000 and an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report holding charges 12 and 17 as not proved, charges 5,6, 11 and 13 as partly proved and the remaining charges as proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated November 28, 2001 along with a copy of the Enquiry report, for which, he submitted his reply on December 4, 2001. The Assistant General Manager-Disciplinary Authority, Pondicherry concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and by order dated January 23, 2002, dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal before the General Manager-Appellate Authority, second respondent herein, on February 28, 2002. Without adverting to the points raised and; without following the procedure prescribed in the Service Regulations, the appellate Authority, by order dated August 14,2002, has rejected the appeal and passed a non-speaking order. The Statutory revision filed by the petitioner to the Executive Director-Reviewing Authority, was also dismissed on May 17,2003, Left with no other option, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

(2.) Though the petitioner has assailed the findings of the Enquiry Officer as perverse and not based on evidence, raised a plea of violation of Principles of Natural Justice on the ground that the Charge-memo did not contain the list of, witnesses and the documents relied on by the Management and thus, he was prevented from effectively defending himself in the enquiry besides challenging the proportionality of the punishment, S.V. Jayaraman, learned, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his submissions only to the procedural irregularity committed by the appellate authority, in confirming the orders of the third respondent, dismissing the petitioner from service,

(3.) Referring to the order passed by the General Manager/appellate authority, the second respondent herein, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are factual discrepancies in the order of the appellate authority and without adverting to the grounds raised in the appeal, he has passed a non-speaking and laconic order, by merely extracting the grounds of appeal and therefore, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, under the Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short, the Regulations). To illustrate, he submitted that though the petitioner has stated that there was a delay in submitting the AUF statements to the Controlling Office, the appellate authority has committed a factual error in coming to the conclusion that the said returns were not at all submitted to the said Authority. He further submitted that, being the final authority to adjudicate the facts, the appellate authority is bound to examine the report of the Enquiry Officer, with reference to the defence and pass a detailed order on the appeal Memorandum. Therefore, learned senior counsel prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration to pass a detailed order, considering all the grounds raised in the appeal.