GOALKRISHNA VAMAN KAMATH Vs. CORPORATION BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges an order dated 13th May, 1998 passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under the provisions of the Corporation Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982, to dispose of the appeals assailing the orders passed by the appellate authority. By the impugned order, the appellate authority has affirmed the order dated 14th November, 1997 passed against the petitioner, holding him guilty of misconduct by the Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) THE petitioner at the relevant time was working as Manager at Chembur, Bombay Branch, of respondent Corporation Bank. He was there between the period from 4th June, 1983 and 1st December, 1984. During this period, the petitioner allegedly committed misconduct. The Article of Charge was framed against him and he was served with a charge-sheet with covering letter dated 26th March, 1986, calling upon him to submit his written statement within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said letter. The petitioner claims to have received the charge-sheet on 4th April, 1986. Three charges were framed against the petitioner. During the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer framed points for determination by which he divided three charges into 13 points for the sake of convenience, viz. points 1. 0 to 1. 3, 2. 1 to 2. 7, 3. 0 and 3. 1. The enquiry was held between 18th September, 1986 to 18th March, 1987. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and findings to the Disciplinary Authority. In so far as charge No. 3. 1 is concerned, according to the petitioner, it is an additional charge that is framed by the Enquiry Officer during enquiry and held to be proved.

(3.) ON the basis of the material produced, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that except charge Nos. 1. 2, 2. 1, 2. 4, 2. 7 and 3. 0 other charges are fully proved. As far as charge No. 2. 1 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the said charge has been partly proved. In so far as charge No. 2. 6 is concerned, the burden was put on the petitioner to prove his defence that the loans were sanctioned under mass loaning scheme under pressure. The Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner failed to prove his defence and, therefore, that charge is answered in negative.