N.MOHANDOSS Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Award dated 04.10.2016 passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.95 of 2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner states that he is an Ex-Serviceman and after rendering service with the Indian Army, he joined the services of the State Bank of India as an Armed Guard on 19.08.1994. The petitioner was working as a Watchman in the Gajalnaickenpatti Branch. A charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 15.06.1999. Two charges were framed against the writ petitioner, alleging that he collected a sum of Rs.3,400/-(Rupees Three Thousand and Four Hundred only) during 1996-1998 from one Mr.M.Jayapal for credit to his children's Recurring Deposit amount and misappropriated the said amount by cheating the Bank customer. The 2nd charge is with regard to six incidents of outside borrowing without approval from the appropriate authority. An enquiry was conducted. The petitioner states that a letter was obtained from him as if he had admitted the charges. Thereafter, he was transferred to Harur Branch. The Domestic Enquiry was conducted and the petitioner, even in his affidavit, has stated that he gave a letter as if he has admitted the charges. Since, he was transferred, he could not able to travel and participate in the enquiry and based on his request, the 1 st enquiry was not conducted and a fresh enquiry was commenced. The Enquiry officer held that the first charge is not proved and in respect of the six incidents of outside borrowing, the five incidents has not been proved and one incident is proved. The 3rd respondent Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry officer and proposed the punishment of discharge from service in letter dated 21.11.2000. Consequently, the punishment of discharge from service was imposed in order dated 17.03.2001 and the said order was confirmed by the 2 nd respondent Appellate Authority on 15.06.2001.

(3.) The petitioner filed W.P.No.23258 of 2001, challenging the punishment and the said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 16.07.2010. He preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.1699 of 2010 and the writ appeal was allowed by an order dated 23.12.2011. The order dated 17.03.2001, imposing the punishment of discharge and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 15.06.2001 were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the 3rd respondent disciplinary authority for fresh consideration. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that it is left open to the disciplinary authority to commence the proceedings from the stage of issuance of fresh show cause notice, indicating his tentative disagreement with the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer.