INDIAN BANK Vs. V. RAVI CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was appointed as a Clerk/Shroff by the appellant Bank. In the year 2003, he was working in a branch at Ghattu of Chittoor District. The staff in the branch comprised of the Manager, the respondent and a sub -staff. A charge -sheet was issued to the respondent on 18 -01 -2003 alleging that an entry for Rs. 10,000/ - was made in the token register by the sub -staff in favour of one Mr. Gopal and though no payment was made against that entry, the respondent manipulated the records depicting as though payment was made. Allegations of dishonest, misappropriation of Rs. 10,000/ - as well as manipulation of records were made. The respondent submitted explanation to the charge -sheet. Not satisfied with the same, the management of the bank directed departmental enquiry. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that both the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority examined the report and proposed the punishment of reduction of pay scale of the respondent by three stages. However, the administration thought it fit to get the matter reviewed by its Vigilance Department, Chennai.

(2.) THROUGH its communication dated 04 -03 -2006, the Vigilance Cell insisted that the punishment of removal must be imposed. Accordingly, a final show cause notice dated 27 -05 -2006 proposing the punishment of removal was issued. At that stage, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 13153 of 2006 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of with certain directions, in particular that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard. This was complied with and the disciplinary authority proposed the punishment of reduction of pay scale by certain increments. The matter was once again circulated to the Chief Vigilance Officer who in turn asked the disciplinary authority to implement the earlier advice of removal of the respondent from service. As a result, the punishment of removal was imposed upon the respondent through order dated 28 -08 -2006. The departmental remedy availed by the respondent did not yield any result. Ultimately, he filed Writ Petition No. 9070 of 2008 before this Court challenging the order of removal dated 28 -08 -2006 as confirmed in the appeal.

(3.) THE writ petition was opposed by the appellants stating that the procedure prescribed by law was followed at every stage and that the order of removal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.