IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 30134 of 2003(K)
1. A.SURENDRA RAJ, SENIOR MANAGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CANARA BANK,
... Respondent
2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
3. GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
For Respondent :SRI.M.C.SEN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :10/08/2007
O R D E R
Antony Dominic, J.
========================
W.P(C).No.30134 of 2003
========================
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2007.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a Senior Manager in the Tripunithura Branch
of the first respondent Bank. After his tenure at Tripunithura, he
was issued a memo of charges containing six charges. To put it
in a nutshell, the allegation had that he had permitted temporary
over draft in some Savings Bank Accounts without the request of
the account holder concerned and failed to adhere to the systems
and procedure laid down while allowing the said temporary over
draft facility. He filed his written statement, Ext.P2 and
eventually an Officer of the Bank was appointed as the Enquiry
Officer for conducting a domestic enquiry. Disciplinary enquiry
was accordingly conducted wherein the Bank adduced oral
evidence while the petitioner did not adduce any evidence. On
conclusion of the enquiry, considering the materials available, the
WP(C) 30134/03 -: 2 :-
Enquiry Officer submitted Ext.P4 report holding that the charges
were proved. Thereafter, copy of the report was furnished to the
delinquent and he was allowed to file representation against the
findings in the enquiry report. Considering the enquiry
proceedings, report of the Enquiry Officer, representation made
by the delinquent and other materials, the Disciplinary Authority
issued Ext.P6 order imposing a punishment of reduction of pay
by one stage with cumulative effect. Petitioner pursued the
matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority by Ext.P8 and
that was also rejected by Ext.P9. It is seeking to quash Exts.P6
and 9 and for consequential reliefs that this Writ Petition has
been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued three
points: (1) That the Enquiry Officer relied on the investigation
report submitted by MW3 along with the statements of the
account holders recorded by him and that the account holders
were not made available in the enquiry for cross examination.
According to him, he was thus denied a reasonable opportunity to
prove his innocence and this is in violation of the principles of
natural justice. (2) It is also contended that the Bank had with it
WP(C) 30134/03 -: 3 :-
letters written by the account holders concerned and that though
copies of these letters were part of the enquiry proceedings, the
Enquiry Officer did not deal with the same. (3) It is also
contended that Regulation 6(3) of Canara Bank Officer Employees
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations required that documents relied
on while issuing memo of charges against a delinquent should be
supplied and that in this case he has not been furnished copies of
the documents. (4) Lastly, it is contended that there was union
rivalry between the petitioner on the one side and MW1 on the
other side and therefore they had vested interest to ensure that
the petitioner is punished.
3. As regards the first contention, regarding the report
submitted by MW3 is concerned, it is seen that MW3, an officer of
the Bank had conducted a preliminary investigation into the
allegations against the petitioner and had recorded statements
from the concerned account holders. On the materials collected
by him he has also submitted his report to the Bank and this
report was produced in the enquiry and marked as ME. 82.
Complaint of the petitioner is that along with the report, the
statements recorded by the Investigation Officer were also
WP(C) 30134/03 -: 4 :-
produced in the enquiry and that though the Enquiry Officer
made reference to those statements, these persons were not
made available for cross examination.
4. On a reference to Ext.P4 report, it is seen that the
Enquiry Officer has referred to ME.82 investigation report and has
in that context made reference to the statements of the account
holders. Such reference has been made in relation to each of the
six charges that were held to be proved against the delinquent.
On a reading of the report, I am inclined to think that what is
relied on by the Enquiry Officer is the report submitted by MW3
and not the statements. Coming to the correctness of the
contention that the account holders were not available for cross
examination, I notice that the author of the report ME.82 was
offered for cross examination and thus the delinquent had the
opportunity to rebut the evidentiary value of the contents of the
report submitted by MW3. Since the statements as such are not
relied on by the Enquiry Officer, I do not think that the report is
vitiated for not making available the account holders for cross
examination. Thus, as long as the Enquiry Officer relied on the
report submitted by the Investigation Officer and the contents
WP(C) 30134/03 -: 5 :-
thereof, which are based on the statement recorded by him from
the account holders and as the Investigation Officer was offered
for cross examination in the enquiry, I am not inclined to think
that there is violation of the principles of natural justice that has
been caused to the petitioner.
5. Coming to the second grievance of the writ petitioner
about the letters written by the account holders are concerned, it
is seen from Ext.P4 report of enquiry that what was produced by
the petitioner during the course of enquiry are photocopies of the
letters said to have been written by the account holders of the
Bank, exonerating the petitioner. However strangely enough,
these records were not available in the Bank files. It is true that
during the course of cross examination of MW2 the petitioner
showed these letters to him and questioned him as to who had
written those letters. In response to that question, referring to
these letters, his natural reaction was that these letters were
written by the account holders, whose names were mentioned in
the letters itself. But however, in the face of the contention of
the Bank that these letters were not available on the files of the
Bank, I am not prepared to take the evidence of MW2 as one
WP(C) 30134/03 -: 6 :-
confirming the genuineness of these letters nor its availability on
the files of the Bank. That apart, if the petitioner strongly relied
on these letters, it was upto him to prove the authenticity of
these documents by examining the authors of those letters as his
witnesses. This has not done in this case. In such case, the
Enquiry Officer has not relied on these letters and I cannot find
any fault with the Enquiry Officer in this respect as well.
6. Next is the contention regarding the non-supply of the
documents in terms of Regulation 6(3) of Canara Bank Officer
Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations. While the
petitioner would allege that he was not given documents,
paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the Bank would
show that all the documents relied on against the petitioner were
in fact supplied. Therefore, though the petitioner asserts the
non-availability of the documents, the Bank is disputing the
correctness of the averments. I also notice that the petitioner
has not raised his contention with regard to the non-availability
of these documents along with the memo of charges in his
written statement or the representation filed against the report of
the Enquiry Officer or even in the appeal filed before the
WP(C) 30134/03 -: 7 :-
Appellate Authority. Added to this, is the fact that he could not
prove any prejudice that has been caused to him, if at all these
documents were not made available along with the memo of
charges.
7. Last is the plea of malafides arising out of the alleged
inter union rivalry. I can understand, if malafides are alleged
against the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer and it is
not the case. Here is a case where malafides are alleged against
the witnesses, who are MW1 and MW2. The dependability of the
evidence that was tendered by these witnesses was a matter to
be assessed by the Enquiry Officer and it was totally upto the
Enquiry Officer to come to his own conclusions. This could not
have been influenced by these witnesses in any manner.
Therefore the allegation of malafides have no substance.
Assuming that there is any truth in the story alleged with regard
to inter union rivalry that is pleaded, I do not want to go any
further into the allegations for the reason that persons against
whom malafide is alleged, have not been impleaded in this Writ
Petition.
8. I do not find any merit in the contentions raised
WP(C) 30134/03 -: 8 :-
warranting interference with the finding of guilt or punishment
that has been imposed on the petitioner.
Writ Petition is dismissed.
Antony Dominic,
Judge.
ess 10/8