MAHENDRANATH V V Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER SYNDICATEBANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the action of the 1st respondent in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner by order dated January 30, 2001 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated May 17,2001, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the 1 st respondent issued a charge-sheet alleging that he has been absented from duties unauthorisedly, for which he submitted explanation in which he also requested the authority to view the matter under Clause 19.12(e) of the Bipartite settlement. According to the said clause, enquiry need not be held if the employee makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in reply to the show-cause notice. The said plea was not considered and the 1st respondent appointed Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer submitted report stating that, the charges levelled against the petitioner were, fully established. The Enquiry Officer did not examine any officer on the management side. Basing on the above report the 1 st respondent passed the punishment order making him to, compulsorily retire. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1 st respondent disciplinary authority did not consider the facts and his representation. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) On the other hand, the respondents filed counter admitting that the respondent bank and the petitioner are governed by the provisions of the Bipartite settlement which forms the conditions of service for the employees like the petitioner working the Banking Industry. However, it is stated, the management is the sole judge to decide as to which course of action would suit to take disciplinary action against a particular employee and the petitioner cannot claim/demand the respondent management to follow a particular procedure by leaving the other alternatives. In this case, the management had to issue the charge-sheet and to go for a departmental enquiry since the petitioner's acts were repetitive in nature and also affecting the customer service and discipline among other employees. The petitioner had attended the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer and admitted the misconducts/charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet after going through the documents and the Enquiry Officer also submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are conclusively proved during the enquiry. When the petitioner himself admitted the charges after going through the documents and did not dispute the documentary evidence produced by the management during the enquiry, there was no need for the management to lead any evidence. The petitioner was awarded with the punishment of compulsory retirement by the disciplinary authority after following all the required procedure in accordance with the service conditions applicable to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.