UCO BANK Vs. L S R MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole respondent herein is an employee of the 1st appellant -Bank. He worked as Manager of Patighanpur Branch of Medak District between 22 -05 -1987 and 21 -02 -1990. A charge -sheet was issued to him on 21 -01 -1995, alleging irregularities during his tenure at Patighanpur, particularly in respect of the account of a customer, by name, M/s. Geekay Wires Pvt. Ltd. The respondent submitted his explanation, denying the charges. The appellants were not satisfied with the explanation and accordingly an Enquiry Officer was appointed.

(2.) IN the course of enquiry, the respondent intended to examine several witnesses and relied upon certain documents. He accordingly furnished a list of witnesses and documents. The enquiry officer/however, permitted the respondent to examine only one witness, by name, Devadanam, the Manager of the concerned Branch, at the time of enquiry. A representation was made on 05 -12 -1997, reiterating the request, seeking permission to examine the other witnesses. That was rejected by the enquiry officer on 28 -07 -1998.

(3.) THE writ petition was allowed on 19 -09 -2007, by a learned single Judge, and the order of punishment was set aside. It was left open to the appellants to proceed against the respondent, duly giving reasonable opportunity. The appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 1647 of 2008, against the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal was allowed on 13 -12 -2008, on the ground that the learned single Judge, who allowed the writ petition, did not take into account, the purport of Regulation 6(10)(b)(ii) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short 'the Regulations), and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration and disposal. After such remand, the writ petition was allowed, through order dated 19 -12 -2013. It was observed that the respondent mentioned the relevance of each witness, proposed to be examined by him and the purpose thereof, and that the denial of permission by the enquiry officer to examine those witnesses resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, apart from violation of Regulations. It was left open to the appellants to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the relevant Regulations.