A AMARENDERNATH Vs. SARASWATHI GRAMEENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 7-5-1988 passed by the 1st respondent, and consequently a direction for his reinstatement into service in the respondent-bank.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted as the Branch Manager of Saraswathi Grameena Bank at Bela village of Adilabad district. The bank being a Grameena Bank, its main objective is to cater to the needs of the rural masses by way of advancing loans to agriculturists,etc. It is stated that on some false complaints, the petitioner was kept under suspension with effect from 1-10-1985 and was served with a charge-memo dated 7-11-1986 and was asked to submit his explanation within ten days. It is also stated that the charges are on five main counts and each charge contained different allegations. The petitioner is said to have submitted explanation on 21-11-1986 dealing with all the aspects. On the basis of the explanation, an enquiry was contemplated and the findings were presented on 18-6-1987. It is further stated that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the respondent-bank. It is further stated that Ramesh, who is said to have sent a complaint against the petitioner, disowned such complaint and the Enquiry Officer also held that Ramesh lacked credence. It is stated that there are several inconsistencies and infirmities in conducting the enquiry. Basing on the enquiry, a show-cause notice was served on the petitioner on 16-1-1988 on the question of imposition of penalty and the petitioner submitted a proper reply and requested the authorities not to impose extreme penalty of dismissal. The disciplinary authority, without taking into consideration the sum and substance of the charges, the enquiry report and the finding of the Enquiry Officer as against each charge, passed the impugned order dated 7-5-1988 imposing the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, a counter has been filed inter alia con tending the procedure contemplated for enquiry in accordance with the settled norms. It is further stated that as against the order of dismissal dated 7-5-1988, the delinquentofficer preferred an appeal to the Board of Directors of the bank, the appellateauthority,viderepresentation dated 2-6-1988. The Board of Directors, in the meeting held on 21-9-1988, considered the appeal and reduced the penalty of 'dismissal from service' to 'removal from service', so that the petitioner may not incur the disqualification from future employment, and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide bank's proceedings No. CON/ F/34/88, dated 22-10-1988. It is further stated that as the petitioner was functioning as the manager of the bank, he was the soleauthority for distributing funds to the parties; he had not cond ucted properly; there was misuse of funds and as the charges levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature, the respondents had no option than to issue the impugned order on the basis of enquiries and after obtaining necessary explanation from the petitioner,