K.KASIPATHI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief:

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Paid Secretary in PACS, Gavaravaram, Chodavaram Taluk, Visakhapatnam District. Subsequently, he was absorbed in the DCC Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam as a Staff Assistant. Later he was promoted as Assistant Manager and thereafter he was promotedas Branch Manager and worked in Visakahapatnam Main branch and completed 31 years of service without any remark. While the matter stood thus, the disciplinary authority has issued the impugned proceedings suspended the petitioner from service when he was worked as Manager in Yelamanchili Branch, Visakhapatam. It is further stated that the then Assistant General Manager, DCC Bank Ltd., lodged a police complaint against the Gold Appraiser of DCC Bank namely L. Prakasa Rao and his family members to the S.H.O. I town Police Station Visakhapatnam. In pursuance of the same, a crime in Crime No.51/2014 was registered against the Gold Appraiser and his family members for the offences U/s. 420 of IPC R/w S.34 of IPC and the Criminal case is pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner has not involved in the above said crime but the Bank authorities unnecessarily suspended him from service and issued charge memo. Thereafter,the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him and requested the authorities to drop the said charges and to take appropriate action against the Gold Appraiser and his family members and to recover the fake gold loan amount of Rs.24,51,500.00 from the said members. After considering explanation, the authority issued reinstatement orders pending enquiry and posted the petitioner as a Manager at Chodavaram Branch, Visakhapatnam. Basing on report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice calling for explanation and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to pay the 30% of corpus fund Rs.1,96,846.00 on 20/4/2017 but the bank authorities without consent deducted the said amount from petitioner's retirement benefits and grantedRs.3,500/- as monthly pension. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent, but no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.