P S KARWADE Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred by an employee who has since retired from service. He retired on 31st of December, 1993. A show cause notice issued to him on 8th of May, 1993 is. the subject-matter of this writ petition. Before noticing further details, a few facts which are relevant be also noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that in his capacity as manager of the bank, he issued a notice to one of the customers of the bank, namely M/s Mangaldeep. This communication was addressed on 10th of October, 1992. This was a demand notice. This concern sent its reply. This is dated 4th of November, 1992. In this accusations were made against the,zonal Manager, who also happens to be the disciplinary authority. A demand notice issued by the petitioner and the reply given by M/s Mangaldeep have been appended with this petition as Annexures P/8 and P/9 respectively. As letter addressed by M/s Mangaldeep remained unanswered, a petition was preferred by the above concern before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi. UCO Bank, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, was sued through respondent No. 2. The present petitioner was also arrayed as a respondent in official capacity. It is further stated that the petitioner as also the zonal manager put in appearance before the said Commission on 2nd of July, 1993 and took a common stand. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 now wanted to shift the liability which is supposed to be shared by petitioner and respondent No. 2 and this is the entire motive for issuing the charge-sheet referred to above.

(3.) THE challenge to the initiation of the departmental enquiry is based on following grounds :