IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06/11/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
WRIT PETITION.NO.30667 OF 2002
A. Laxman Kini
Co-operative Officer
(Compulsory retired)
Indian Overseas Bank,
11, 7th Main, Tiruvaluvar Nagar,
Chennai 600 118. .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Indian Overseas Bank,
rep. by Chairman and Managing
Director, having office
at No.763, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Chief Officer,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office,
Surya Lok Complex Gun Foundry,
Hyderabad 500 001.
3. The Executive Director,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
763, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
4. The Deputy General Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
763, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
5. General Manager
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
763, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002. ..Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.V. Dhanabalan
For Respondents : Mr.Jayesh B. Dolia for
M/s. Aiyar & Dolia
:J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the
order passed by the disciplinary authority of the Indian Overseas Bank
inflicting the punishment of compulsory retirement, which has been confirmed
in appeal by the appellate authority.
2. The petitioner was working as Deputy Manager at Somnathpur
branch of Indian Overseas Branch within Balasore district in the State of
Orissa during 1996. On 12.7.1996, as the Branch Manager had gone to the
Regional Office to attend a meeting, the petitioner was in charge of the
branch. During that time, the petitioner refused to grant a demand loan of
Rs.38,000/- to one Mr.R. Panda and his wife. On the other hand, on the very
same day, the petitioner took cash of Rs.20,00 0/- with a view to deposit the
same in Balasore branch, but as there was bandh in Balasore, the amount was
not deposited on the said day and the amount remained with the petitioner and
was deposited with the State bank at Balasore on the next day. On the basis
of such allegations, charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner, who filed
a reply denying the allegations. An enquiry officer was appointed and certain
witnesses were examined. Ultimately, the enquiry was concluded and the
enquiry officer found guilty of the charges levelled against the petitioner.
A further show cause notice was issued and thereafter, the disciplinary
authority inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement which has been
confirmed in appeal.
3. The petitioner has challenged such a punishment on several
grounds. It is contended that the enquiry was held ex-parte and sufficient
opportunity had not been given to the petitioner.
4. On going through the materials on record, it appears that
during the departmental proceedings, witnesses were examined and the
petitioner himself has participated in the enquiry. Subsequently, during the
stage of adducing rebuttal evidence, the petitioner had remained absent and an
adjournment had been given. Again on 10.2.1999, the petitioner had remained
absent. It appears that the petitioner had sent a medical certificate
indicating that he was suffering from hepatitis. Subsequently, the petitioner
had also filed an application on 16.2.1999 to set aside the ex-parte enquiry
and give him an opportunity of hearing.
5. It is true that mere filing of a medical certificate would
not automatically result in adjournment of any quasi-judicial proceeding, like
a departmental enquiry. However, the medical certificate, which has been
filed, indicates that it has been issued by the competent authority, and
therefore, in my opinion such certificate could have been given credence,
particularly when soon after the petitioner had filed another application for
giving him opportunity to adduce evidence. It is true that enquiry had been
quite protracted. However, since a major punishment was subsequently
inflicted, it would be more appropriate on the part of the respondents to give
further opportunity to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that
even assuming that delinquency of the petitioner has been established, the
punishment of compulsory retirement appears to be grossly disproportionate,
particularly when no loss had been caused to the bank nor there is any
evidence of criminal misappropriation of the amount. Since I am of the
opinion that further opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner to
adduce evidence on his behalf and the matter is to be considered afresh, the
question of appropriate punishment can also be decided at that stage.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders passed by the
appellate authority and the disciplinary authority are set aside and the
matter is relegated to the stage on which it was on 10.2.1999. The very same
enquiry officer, if still available, may proceed with the enquiry from that
stage or another enquiry officer may continue with the proceedings from the
stage as on 10.2.1999. The petitioner should be given an opportunity to
adduce evidence on his behalf and thereafter the matter should be considered
in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent
indicated. There would be no order as to costs.
06-11-2003
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dpk
To
1. Indian Overseas Bank,
rep. by Chairman and Managing
Director, having office
at No.763, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Chief Officer,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office,
Surya Lok Complex Gun Foundry,
Hyderabad 500 001.
3. The Executive Director,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
763, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
4. The Deputy General Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
763, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
5. General Manager
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
763, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.