V CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER/PERSONNEL, VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this intra court appeal is to the order of the learned single judge dated 3-11-2016 made in W.P.No: 23102 of 2001 in and by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him by second respondent which was confirmed on appeal by the first respondent was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as an agricultural officer in the respondent bank on 24-3-1986. After having completed the period of probation he had worked as an agricultural officer in various places for nearly 13 years and has been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. While so the second respondent issued a charge memo on 3-7-1998 framing as many as five charges against the appellant. The charges related to the period during which the appellant worked as an agricultural officer in the Thanjavur branch of the respondent bank. According to the appellant though he had submitted an explanation to the charge memo the same was not accepted by the respondent bank and the respondent bank appointed a Senior Manager working in the Regional office of the bank at Chennai as the enquiry officer. The appellant would further claim that the enquiry officer without holding a proper enquiry concluded that the appellant is guilty of all the charges. While charges 1, 2, 3 and 5 were held to be partly proved charge 4 was held to be proved. On receipt of the report of the enquiry officer the second respondent issued a show cause notice seeking the explanation of the appellant to the findings of the enquiry officer. The appellant submitted his explanation on 28-8-1999. The second respondent however rejected the said explanation without properly appreciating the same and imposed the following punishments:

(3.) Aggrieved the appellant preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 09/12/1999. The appellate authority rejected the appeal by its order dated 22/08/2000. Challenging the said rejection the appellant had approached this court by way of the above writ petition.