BABURAYA NAIK S Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated January 21, 1986 and March 3, 1987. By the order dated november 21, 1986 the disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty under Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of the Vijaya Bank officers Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "regulations of 1981") and imposed the punishment of withholding one increment permanently which will have effect of postponing his future increment (as next increment which falls due shall be stopped permanently ). This came to be challenged by the petitioner and the appellate authority confirmed it by the order dated March 3, 1987.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as an officer in the Respondent No. 1 bank's branch at Secunderabad. By the order dated February 13, 1985 issued by the Divisional Manager, he came to be transferred to Adoni branch and by the order of the same date he was relieved from duty. However, when the service of those orders were sought to be effected upon the petitioner, he declined to accept the same and challenged the authority of the Bank Manager. The charge sheet came to be served upon the petitioner dated October 10, 1985. Three charges came to be levelled against the petitioner and he was charged for committing misconduct under Regulation 3 (1) and (2) read with 24 of the Regulations of 1981. The three issues came to be framed in respect of the said three charges which read as under:

(3.) THE Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that in view of the evidence led, issue no. 1-charge no. 1 is proved. But in respect of other two charges of issues he held that there was only evidence of Branch manager and the said evidence though cannot be said to be false, but he declined to accept the same as there was no corroboration. Hence it was found that other two charges were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in its report and imposed the above mentioned punishment. The Appellate Authority approved those findings and also the punishment.