UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK Vs. GEORGE KURUVILLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent no. 1 was an officer of United Commercial Bank posted abroad. He was implicated in a disciplinary proceeing on the charge of financial irregularity committed while discharging his official duty abroad. On May 27, 1991 he was put under suspension. He was charge sheeted on October 4, 1993. He was afforded opportunity, to defend himself in the said proceeding. He, however, contended in the writ petition that he was not given tile benefit of inspection of 39 documents which according to him were relevant for the purpose of defending himself in the said proceeding. The bank could not offer inspection of those documents as according to the bank those documents were destroyed at the instance of the respondent no. 1 and the bank also could; not exhibit those documents before the enquiry officer. Without those documents being exhibited the writ petitioner was held guilty of the charges brought against him by the enquiry officer. Before the enquiry officer he also insisted that one Mr. Thomson and one Dr. Alumottil should be produced by the bank so that he could cross-examine them. The bank initially wanted to produce Mr. Thomson witness. The bank was unsuccessful. The respondent no.1 thereafter insisted a summon to be issued upon "Mr. Thomson. Such request was acceded to. However, Mr. Thomson did not appear before the enquiry officer. In case of Dr. Alumotfil same exercise was done at the instance of the respondent no.1. However, the said gentleman also did not appear before the enquiry officer. Without those 39 documents being exhibited and without Mr. Thomson and Dr. Alumottil being examined, the enquiry officer on the evidence available before him held the respondent no.1 guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority proposed a punishment of dismissal from service. However, before the enquiry could be completed a writ petition was moved being W. P. No. 972 of 1997 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a direction upon the enquiry officer to dispose of the representation made by the respondent no. 1. The learned Single Judge gave direction for inspection of documents. The learned Judge also held that the writ petitioner would be entitled to lead evidence in support of his defence as well as to cross-examine the prosecution witness. The parties accepted the said order by not preferring any appeal. In terms of the said order of His Lordship a representation was made to the enquiry officer with regard to irregularities and deficiencies in the proceeding. The enquiry officer ultimately held the writ petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer proposed a punishment of dismissal from service. At that stage a subsequent writ petition was filed being W.P. No. 2716 of 1997. By the second writ petition the writ petitioner challenged the order of suspension coupled with a prayer for his reinstatement as also for other consequential benefits. By an interim order dated January 2, 1998 the petitioner was given liberty to appear before the authority in terms the impugned notice and the authority was granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law and pass final order with a corresponding direction not to implement the said final order, if any, passed on the same. Accordingly the authority proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding and ultimately passed a final order on May 4, 1998 which was allowed to be challenged in the same writ petition by filing a supplementary affidavit. The writ petition was finally heard by the learned Single Judge and disposed of by the order impugned passed on March 23, 2001.

(2.) By the judgement and order impugned the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the final order. The learned Judge held that there had been inordinate delay in issuance of the charge sheet and there was no reason why the petitioner was kept under suspension for about two years five months without implicating him in a disciplinary proceeding by submission of charge sheet. The learned Judge ultimately directed reinstatement or writ petitioner /respondent no. 1 with all back wages from the date of suspension. The learned judge, however, granted liberty to the appellant bank to proceed afresh on the self-same charge by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/respondent no. 1 to defend himself at the enquiry. The learned Judge also observed that the petitioner would be under deemed suspension from the day when the charge sheet was issued till the proceeding was completed and the earlier order of suspension although liable to be quashed was not interfered with as the learned Judge found the same merged in the final order. In any event, the learned Judge gave the writ petitioner benefit of back wages for the entire period being the date when he was originally put under suspension till he was reinstated in terms of His Lordship's direction.

(3.) The present appeal was filed by the appellant bank. The Division Bench admitted the appeal with a direction that the appellant would be entitled to hold the enquiry in terms of the direction of the learned Single Judge. However, the direction for payment of arrear salary was stayed. Accordingly the bank proceeded with a fresh enquiry on the basis of the earlier chargesheet after reinstating the petitioner in service. The writ petitioner was, however, not put under suspension second time. While the proceeding was on the writ petitioner took leave for three months and overstayed the leave and never joined the bank making the entire exercise futile. The writ petitioner was. again chargesheeted on the ground of unauthorized absence and he was ultimately removed from service by an order of the disciplinary authority passed on May 15, 2003. The writ petitioner accepted the subsequent order of removal and accepted terminal benefits.