P VENKATARAYUDU Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Manager at Pitlam Branch of Andhra Bank, was served with a charge memo dated 30.09.1988. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Assistant General Manager, who was the disciplinary authority, appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer after holding enquiry submitted his report on 27.02.1993. The enquiry officer held charges 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 5, 6(b), 7, 8, 9 and 10 as proved and charges 1(d), 2, 3, 4, 6(a) and 11 as not proved. The Assistant General Manager, who initiated the disciplinary proceedings and who by the time of submission of enquiry report was promoted as Deputy General Manager, issued proceedings No.66/20/V/101/1112 dated 03-01-1994 imposing the punishment of reversion of the petitioner from MMGS-II to JMGS-I, fixing his basic pay at Rs.4390/-. An appeal filed by the petitioner to the General Manager (Personnel) on 09-05-1994 having been rejected by the order of the General Manager (Personnel) passed on 21.04.1995, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) Sri P. Naveen Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the Assistant General Manager, who was the disciplinary authority at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings, had become an appellate authority under the Andhra Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981 (for short 'the Regulations') in view of his promotion as Deputy General Manager and, therefore, the imposition of punishment by him purporting to exercise his jurisdiction of disciplinary authority is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the regulations. Learned counsel also contended that in respect of some of the charges, allegations relating to the period subsequent to his transfer from the Pitlam Branch were made and that this fact shows total non-application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority in dealing with the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the enquiry is vitiated on this count.

(3.) Sri Abhinand Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently resisted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel contended that though under the un-amended regulations, which were in force at the relevant point of time, the Assistant General Manager was the disciplinary authority, as per Regulation 5(3) of the Regulations, the disciplinary authority or any authority higher than it may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation No.4 on any officer or employee. Relying upon this regulation, the learned counsel submits that though at the time when the punishment was imposed on the petitioner, the disciplinary authority viz., Assistant General Manager was promoted as Deputy General Manager, he still had jurisdiction to impose punishment, being a higher authority than the disciplinary authority.