C VENKATARATHNAM Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is instituted by a Head Cashier of State Bank of Hyderabad (henceforth called the 'Bank'), challenging the validity of the orders passed by the second respondent/Assistant General Manager/Disciplinary Authority of the Bank, imposing on him the punishment of dismissal from service through his orders dated 25.01.2002 which order, when appealed against, has been confirmed by the first respondent/Deputy General Manager/Appellate Authority through his orders dated 12.04.2002. While the petitioner was working as Head Cashier at the Jubilee Hills Branch of the Bank, on 03.07.1999, he was suspected to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs and consequently was suspended from service on 05.07.1999 and subsequently a complaint was also lodged against him with the Jubilee Hills Police Station for an offence said to have been committed by him Under Section 409 I.P.C. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, through proceedings dated 15.10.1999, charges were framed against him calling for his reply within fifteen days and even before the petitioner has received the said charge sheet on 17.11.1999, the second respondent/Disciplinary Authority has proceeded further in the matter and on 30.10.1999, appointed an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer, thus denying a vital opportunity for the petitioner to set forth his defence. The petitioner further asserts that, through letter dated 29.11.1999 he requested for supply of documents relied upon by the Bank against him, to enable him to draw up his defence. However, no such documents were supplied. Hence, the petitioner could not participate in the enquiry that was conducted between November 2000 to March 2001. This apart, the petitioner has not been paid the subsistence allowance which is so essentially required to be paid and hence he could not participate in the enquiry. A copy of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer was made available to the petitioner on 12.04.2001 calling for his explanation/comments thereon. Since the whole enquiry was conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner did not file any explanation to the said report. On 01.10.2001, the second respondent has drawn a show cause notice proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed his explanation thereto on 25.01.2002 objecting to the proposed punishment, as the whole proceedings were conducted in utter haste and violation of the principles of natural justice. Notwithstanding the objections raised, the second respondent has proceeded further in the matter on 25.01.2002 and inflicted on him the punishment of dismissal from service. There against, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 14.03.2002 which was mechanically dealt with and rejected on 12.04.2002 by the first respondent duly confirming the orders of punishment of the disciplinary authority. Hence this writ petition is instituted.

(2.) Heard Sri T. Surya Karan Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri A. Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) It is contended by Sri T. Surya Karan Reddy that the petitioner has received the charge memo dated 15.10.1999 only on 17.11.1999 and immediately thereafter he requested for supply of copies of documents to enable him to put forth his defence. But however, the Bank has not supplied any such copies and thus denied a fair opportunity for the writ petitioner to put forth his defence and participate in the disciplinary proceedings. This apart, the enquiry proceedings were conducted ex parte. However, the Enquiry Officer held that, charges 4 & 8 as not proved and charges 3, 6 & 9 as partly proved. Whereas, the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the said findings of the Enquiry Officer and held the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The Disciplinary Authority has conveyed his decision of disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer along with the show cause notice drawn by him on 01.10.2001. Prior thereto, the disciplinary authority has not put the petitioner on notice and did not call for his explanation as to why the finings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be disagreed with by him. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has prejudged the matter holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is a fundamental principle of law that, before the Disciplinary Authority proposes to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, particularly when those findings are in favour of the delinquent employee, Disciplinary Authority should provide an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee, duly keeping his mind open till the delinquent employee shows the cause. Since the Disciplinary Authority had not provided any such opportunity, clearly the final order passed by him on 25.01.2002 inflicting the heavy punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner is liable to be treated as vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Surya Karan Reddy has also mounted a serious challenge to the appellate order passed by the first respondent reflecting the mechanical attitude adopted by him in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that, after full-fledged trial into the same set of allegations and after considering the same material as evidence, the competent Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner of the charge, whereas the Disciplinary Authority has held the petitioner guilty and inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service, which was approved by the Appellate Authority mechanically. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited & another, 1999 3 SCC 679, State Bank of India and others Vs. K.P. Narayanan Kutty, 2003 2 SCC 449, Ranjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2006 4 SCC 153in support of his contentions.