LAWS(APH)-2013-1-39

J SRINIVASA RAO Vs. UCO BANK

Decided On January 30, 2013
J Srinivasa Rao Appellant
V/S
UCO BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P. Suresh Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri W.B. Srinivas, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, the learned Standing Counsel for the United Commercial Bank (Bank). The petitioner who was an employee of the Bank was earlier in a departmental appeal retired compulsorily from service by way of punishment by the General Manager (Personnel) - Operations of the Bank at Calcutta on eight charges of misconduct modifying the order of dismissal passed by the original authority i.e. the concerned Deputy General Manager of the Bank's regional office at Hyderabad branch. The petitioner questioned that order in W.P. No. 13052 of 2007. That writ petition was allowed on 01.08.2008 by this Court setting aside the said compulsory retirement order and directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service. However, this Court in the said writ petition left it open to the second respondent therein i.e. the Deputy General Manager of the Bank's regional office at Hyderabad (1st respondent in the present writ petition) to continue the proceedings from the stage preceding submission of the report of the Enquiry Officer (EO).

(2.) Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated into service on 03.10.2008. However, he was placed under suspension on 04.10.2008 and the disciplinary proceedings against him were again taken up. This time the EO was changed and the new EO who is the second respondent herein conducted fresh enquiry and submitted his report dated 24.11.2008 to the first respondent who is the disciplinary authority. The said enquiry report was communicated by the first respondent by his letter dated 01.12.2008 to the petitioner advising him to send his comments/explanation. After the petitioner submitted his explanation the first respondent passed the order dated 04.08.2009 awarding him the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner this time without availing the departmental remedy of appeal filed the present writ petition questioning the said order of compulsory retirement.

(3.) It is not necessary to go into details of service of the petitioner relating to his appointments and postings as there is no dispute about the same. It would be sufficient to note that the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was initiated following detection of certain irregularities committed by him in connection with sanction and disbursement of loans under "UCO Mega Cash Loan Scheme" in the Rajahmundry branch of the Bank. Eight charges were framed against the petitioner. These were the charges which were the basis for earlier punishment order of compulsory retirement which was set aside leaving it open to the Bank to take up fresh proceedings from the stage preceding submission of the prior enquiry report. The allegations which led to the said eight charges against the petitioner can be stated thus.