S KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition the petitioner challenges the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing charge-sheet dated 17-10-1995 and appointing the 3rd respondent as the enquiry officer.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a Scale-11 officer in Indian Overseas Bank at Vijayawada. While working at Vijayawada, he was transferred on 15-7-1994 to Patna branch in the erstwhile Calcutta Zone. He was relieved at Vijayawada on 15-10-5994. The petitioner, however, without joining at Patna, remained absent unauthorisedly. He applied for medical leave on the same day enclosing medical certificate. Though leave has not been sanctioned, as sought for, he had been extending the leave from time to time and on 9-5-1995 he was informed that the leave was declined to him and his period of absence was treated as unauthorised absence. Since he did not report to duty, he was issued the charge-sheet dated 7-10-1995, alleging misconduct within the scope of Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, (for short 'the Conduct Regulations'), and the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation. However, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the charge-sheet. In its proceedings dated 3-1-1996, the respondent-Bank appointed an enquiry officer and the petitioner was directed to cooperate with him to complete the enquiry at the earliest possible. The petitioner was asked to appear before the bank panel doctor. The Bank panel doctor examined the petitioner and submitted a report dated 28-2-1996. In the said report the doctor has stated, inter alia, that "after careful clinical evaluation, after going through (he reports submitted by the officer, I am of the opinion that Mr. S. Krishna Murthy enjoys good health except for his chronic diabetes which is under control and which do not require any special medical facility at Hyderabad." However, on 11-3-1996, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent stating that he was awaiting the reply from the controlling authority in regard to sanction of sick leave applied by him. The 3rd respondent fixed the date of enquiry on 22-4-1996 and the petitioner was asked to appear before the enquiry officer on that day. The petitioner requested the enquiry officer to postpone the enquiry on grounds of illness. Thereafter, the petitioner, finding that the enquiry may not be postponed and the enquiry officer was more eager to go ahead with the enquiry in his absence, has come forward with this writ petition questioning the validity of the charge-sheet and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, which reveals how the petitioner has been working in the organisation, since the day he joined in the bank as an Agricultural Officer in 1977, and the details of the same are germane for disposing of this writ petition. The petitioner while working as Agricultural Officer was transferred from Nalgonda branch to Veepanagadla branch as Manager in 1983, where he joined on 29-3-1984. He worked as Manager only for two days and thereafter remained absent dislocating the work of the Branch. He remained absent for 512 days, out of which 378 days were treated as leave on loss of pay. The petitioner's unauthorised absence caused dislocation in the business of the Branch and also caused serious problems to the administration. He was charge-sheeted for his above misconduct on 13-3-1985. Again he was charge-sheeted for another misconduct on 14-5-1988 and for the latter misconduct he was awarded punishment of censure by the Disciplinary Authority. During 1991, he was transferred to Regional Office, Vijayawada, on promotion to Scale-II. He worked at Vijayawada for 14 months, out of which he was on leave on loss of pay for 7 months 16 days. It is averred that the petitioner was habitually remained absent whenever he was transferred and that he did not move out of Andhra Pradesh, even though he was posted outside A.P. and was liable for transfer to anywhere in India. Coming to the present case, he was transferred to Patna on 15-7-1994, as already stated, and relieved on 15-10-1994 at Vijayawada. From that day onwards he remained absent unauthorisedly till date. Hence he was charge-sheeted as stated supra for his unauthorised absence. But without participating in the enquiry he was dragging on the enquiry. The petitioner exhausted all his leave, except 1-1/2 days of privilege leave and 4 days of sick leave and yet he applied for leave on one ground or the other. Even after filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner did not attend to duty till now, absenting himself from 15-10-1994 without sanction of any leave. The bank's panel doctor examined him and gave a report stating that the petitioner was enjoying good health except for his chronic diabetes, which was under control. He failed to submit his explanation and also appear before the Enquiry Officer. All the necessary documents including the medical report, would be provided to him if the petitioner appears before the Enquiry Officer.