V. SRIDHAR REDDY Vs. SRI SATHAVAHANA GRAMEENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) In this Writ Petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, the petitioner, who has been working as an Officer with the first respondent, seeks to assail the impugned orders dtd. 21/4/2004 imposing punishment of removal, as bad, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice.

(3.) The facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Branch manager (officer) in the month of October, 1984 and worked as such in Rukmapur branch of Karimnagar district from 1985 to 1988. Subsequently, he worked in the branches at Chandurthi, Vilasagar and Gollapalli. Thereafter, he was transferred to Ellantakunta branch as 2nd officer. According to the petitioner, he has been serving the first respondent with utmost sincerity. However, it is stated that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in the year 2001 in respect of certain allegations while he was working in Ellantakunta branch whereupon a charge sheet dtd. 29/3/2001 was served on him, inter alia, on the allegations of (i) involvement in misappropriation of bank funds and (ii) resorting to raising of unauthorised debts irregularly to progress the balance/general ledger accounts to cover up misappropriated amounts. These allegations pertain to the period from 23/2/1998 to 7/5/2000. Thereafter, the second respondent was appointed as Enquiry Officer as per the proceedings dtd. 8/9/2001, and a presenting officer was also appointed vide orders of the even date. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry, during which certain witnesses were examined and documents were marked, and ultimately enquiry report was filed holding that the charges are proved. Thereupon, the first respondent had issued a show cause notice on 4/8/2003 as to why punishment of removal from service should not be not imposed on him. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 19860 of 2003, which was disposed of on 31/12/2003 whereunder the petitioner was permitted to file objections to the show-cause notice. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed detailed explanation on 3/1/2004 giving all the reasons as to why such punishment can not be imposed. In spite of the petitioner submitting such explanation, the impugned order has been passed on 21/4/2004 imposing punishment of removal from service. Hence, the Writ Petition.