IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1673 DAY OF APRIL 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSHCES ABDUL NAZEQ 3: "
£3;TPETIT{0NNO.6-M8/20!}?
Between:
Sri M. Nataraj,
S50 late Sri B.K_Mallikaljunaizii:,V_ V' '
Aged about 55 years, _ '
Rfa CEO Sxi Vijayendra Kumar, V V ~
No.7, Poomima E.11clam3,8'" Main-Rmd;
(Nanda lslumar _51.1'ehziI1i,g -. "
Ratnanjaneya Nagar,
Bangalom W S6OE{}61'-
Petitioner.
(By hI£€$ 'M.1\if &ga_:aj & 'AfS_,.._Advs.)
Dissipiinary Authority,
= A. oflviysore,
_ Rgegion-4, Bangalore zone,
. 'KG. Road,
Bangalore » 560 002.
'2 Sri C.N.Shank.ar,
Manager and Enquiry Ofieer,
State Bank of Mysore, _
Fort Branch, No.303,
Platinum Jubilee Bldg, : '
2'" Floor, SLN Charities Premises,
Bangalore ---- 560 002. ' ., Respondeiate...
(By Sri R Narayana, Adv.)
This Writ Petit§en..is flljfiiflune . & 227 ofthe
Ccmstitution, prayisig 'gas 'dizfeet the ' ' 1.. to permit the
petitioner to avaifi eee agi Advecajze to defend the charges
flamed agaimt _d§§cipi§na:§r.eequiz*y prpeeedings, etc.
for Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, Ceiiifi i!1§id$3fi}!.?5f£'H0Wi11g;
AA - ;0ReER
as a Head Cashier with the State
Kkkoad Branch, Bangalore. Diecipiinary
against him alleging that he has
acts of irregularities, acts of omissicrn and
A ec¢1§n;;;gg¢,, as detailed tmrein. The charges against' the petitioner
charge sheet are as under:
1
swig
"CHARGE SHEET
That, while working as Hmd Cashier' at L é A
Branch since 2.7.1993, you are té»..hm:5a
committed certain serious actsT0f_ irregirlarities,
omission and commission as hereuiiderf* T
CHARGE! T _
You have on 2.3.08 'Branch
premises afigéré ;~j§gaing1%.:11e% am j" is. "reg§Ster, when
you came't «5 auditor
and the -Qashjv not handed over
the kgys -'held by you to the
yo§iE1atze_... .
Branch work: to suffer for wan: of
V " ~ to open the safe;
of cash by the Auditor, there
was a physical cash shortage of Rs.I2,6G,0OO/-
was detected in 36 sections of Rs.500;'-
denominations held by branch cash balance
underjoinst cfzstody.
On aoeount of your above deliberate alleged acts, the
Bank is exposed to a financial loss of Rs.l2,60,100/-
(Rupees twelve Iakh sixty thousand one ixundred only.
CHARGE II
You have failed to detect the coumerfeit notes in ok
Joint Custody in the following cases.
TaI3'lore13r. Rs. Cflflfitflfeflflflféfi, .3 Rs. '- " "
Remittance sent Denomination No.ofpiec;?5 of"w& K238' V "
04.07.08 i0(}i1I/==
04.07.03 5011/» 2 .V *;;m _ , "
' 2(}v}o.; _
" "'15$a '
11.0208 500%
TOTAL (59? E
i§ie"geouineness of the
loss to an extent of
1zs.4,s0oz* (12upeeg exam five hundred only)
to gm
V authority appointed an enquiry officer
mag an The petitioner filed an appiication before
-- authority as per Annexure 'C' seeking permission
V' an Advocate to defend his cam, which has been
E
K.
dismissed as per the oncier at Annexure 'D' dated 27.2.2009...__
Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed this i
petition.
3. Leamed Counsel for the petitioner oomofidithoz moi'/§oiii.iii
matter involves complicated questiono few fact
petitioner is not able to defend~himse1f'
Therefore: petitioner requested to permit
him to appoint an ,gxon£oooto has been
rejected by the i
4. Cfolsrxsel appearing for the
respondent does not involve any
quesiions oi’law”ai3d fact. The petitioner was working
charges alieged against him relate to
i of omission and commission while he
:v..§aai1dli:1g the at the strong room. Therefore, if the petitioner
4: Lheiiéalsistance of a omemployee to defend him, the Bank has
‘:29
an
no objection whatsoever for the same. However, he is not entitled
for appointmem of an Advocate to defend his case.
5. I have carefiiliy considered the a1’gum_ bouts man” ii ‘V
teamed Counsel at the Bar and perused
record.
6. In a disciplinary be
represented by a lawyeroand it i3..at:fi1.e concerned
authority. Ifthe of assistance
by an Advooaiéiwiiiioot the rules of natural
justice. It is o%1?I§i when of oerious or complex nature
and the devligxque-§i1~V is} m,;ab;.g defend himself, he should be
a Division Bench of this Court in
BANK & ANOTHER VS.
1 i 2990 11 Lu 456 has held that assistance of
l enquiry cannot be given unless
4: questions of law and fact are involved in the case.
i
E
7. In the present ease, the charges levelled 4′
petitioner are that he has eommi1:£e’ d certain i_xteg;;lazitieS”‘afintl’_feiledV ”
to detect counterfeit notes while he was a 73
Admittedly, he was a Head the”=ef
time. The matter does not involj;_re any questicms Qtiijew
and fact. The petitioner can’ tr!-{ray take the
assistance of a ce~erep£§§,-$3 tegdeifeiiii. View that
the disciplinary ‘eiiplication of the
petitioner. petition and it is
accordingly dismissed. ” __ H
Sd/-»
Iudgé