Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 124 (KAR)

KRISHNA MURTHY N. v. SYNDICATE BANK

1999-02-25

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body1999
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is common in these two Writ Petitions. He has filed W. P. No. 14805/1989 seeking to quash the order at Annexure-D dated April 7, 1984 placing him under suspension and the order at Annexure- G withdrawing the letter dated July 26, 1984 by which the suspension order was withdrawn and treating him as under continuous suspension. In W. P. No. 2084/1992 the prayer is to quash the order at Annexure-Z1 by which the petitioner was dismissed from the services of the Bank and the order at Annexure-BB dated August 27, 1991 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal. A common prayer is made in both the writ Petitions to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his original post with all consequential benefits. ( 2 ) SINCE these two Writ Petitions pertain to the same petitioner relating to disciplinary proceeding, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is an Officer in Syndicate Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for the alleged misconduct. The first charge as per Annexure-H is that the petitioner has unauthorisedly remained absent from September 7, 1983 to April 6, 1984. The second charge sheet is dated May 27, 1988 relating to sanctioning of loans and allowing over-drawals. The petitioner was called upon to submit his written brief by October 10, 1990. Since the petitioner met with an accident, he submitted a representation on February 14, 1991 seeking time upto february 28, 1991 to submit the brief. The petitioner submitted the same on February 25, 1991. By that time the enquiry was completed and the Enquiry Officer submitted the report on January 16, 1991 itself. Thereafter, on April 25, 1991 the petitioner was furnished with a copy of the enquiry report and his representation was sought within 15 days. Petitioner submitted a representation on May 4, 1991 stating that the written brief submitted by him was not considered by the Enquiry Officer and requesting for a fresh report after considering the written brief. The said request of the petitioner was rejected and the order of dismissal was passed as per annexure-Z1. Petitioner submitted a representation on May 4, 1991 stating that the written brief submitted by him was not considered by the Enquiry Officer and requesting for a fresh report after considering the written brief. The said request of the petitioner was rejected and the order of dismissal was passed as per annexure-Z1. ( 4 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings in the year 1991 in respect of the alleged misconduct in 1984 is bad in law as there is enormous delay, is well founded. On this ground alone the order of dismissal is liable to be quashed. Further there is violation of principles of natural justice. The written brief of the petitioner was not at all considered by the enquiry officer. The order of dismissal passed based on such report is bad in law. Added to this, subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner inspite of his repeated requests. The findings of the enquiry officer are one-sided and they are erroneous. The Disciplinary Authority has mechanically accepted the findings and passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, Mr. V. V. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the Bank sought to justify the impugned action. His submission cannot be accepted for the reasons stated above. The documents sought for by the petitioner have not at all been furnished. There was no fair and valid enquiry. ( 6 ) IT is pertinent to note that the Bank has filed statements before the Credit Guarantee corporation stating that the loans sanctioned by the Bank were in order and they have been sanctioned strictly adhering to the Rules. In view of this admitted position, the charge relating to sanction of loans is not tenable. No fault can be found with the petitioner in this regard. No explanation is forthcoming from the Bank for the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the alleged misconduct committed in the year 1984. For all these reasons, the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) THE order of dismissal is also disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The appellate authority has miserably failed to take into consideration all these facts while considering the appeal preferred by these aspects. For all these reasons, the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) THE order of dismissal is also disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The appellate authority has miserably failed to take into consideration all these facts while considering the appeal preferred by these aspects. Hence the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner is also liable to be quashed. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, W. P. No. 2084/1992 is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. Liberty is reserved to the Bank to conduct a de novo enquiry in accordance with the Rules. ( 9 ) IN view of the nature of charges against the petitioner and since the impugned orders have been quashed on technical grounds, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with 60% back wages and continuity of service. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances, W. P. No. 14805/1989 has become infructuous and the same is dismissed accordingly.