Point of law : Under Rule 66(i) of the Rules of Conduct, if the Bank Management is satisfied that an employee is guilty of misconduct and the same requires initiation of disciplinary action, the decision by the Bank to initiate disciplinary action against the employee shall be communicated to him and charge sheet issued for the purpose shall clearly set forth the circumstances operating against him. This Rule, thus, clearly envisages that the decision of the disciplinary authority i.e., the Bank Management which alone is empowered to issue charge sheet before appointing the Enquiry Officer, shall be communicated to the employee. As no such charge sheet has been issued by the Bank Management, appointment of an Enquiry Officer without issuing charge sheet cannot be sustained.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.Estt./2018-19 dated 05.12.2018 terminating the services of the petitioner as Assistant Manager in the 2nd respondent-Bank.

2. Heard Mr. K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Bharath Ram, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. The brief averments as per the petitioner’s affidavit are: The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager in the 2nd respondent-Bank on 19.07.2012. He was transferred and posted at Elamanchili Branch in the year 2014 and also discharged the functions as In-charge Manager. The 3rd respondent issued a Charge Memo dated 25.05.2018 to him alleging negligence in discharge of his duties and that it lead to heavy loss to the Bank. The petitioner could not submit his explanation to the said Charge Memo, as the same was issued while he was on medical leave. Under the said circumstances, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 09.08.2018 placed the petitioner under suspension, as no explanation was submitted by him to the Charge Memo. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted explanation to the Charge Memo on 25.09.2018 and vide Note orders dated 28.09.2018, the 3rd respondent ordered domestic enquiry and appointed the DGM (Admn.) as Domestic Enquiry Officer and the AGM (LT) as the Presiding Officer. The 3rd respondent vide communication dated 29.09.2018 requested the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry and submit a report within 15 days, pursuant to which, the enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 13.11.2018. Basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause-notice dated 20.11.2018 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the services of the Bank. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 25.11.2018 denying the charges and the report submitted against him. The 3rd respondent, thereafter, passed the order of termination which is impugned in the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the order of termination is not sustainable, as the enquiry was initiated in violation of the Employees Service Regulations (for short ‘the Service Regulations’) of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited-2nd respondent. He submits that it is for the Management to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and the C.E.O.- 3rd respondent has no power or authority to initiate the same. It is his specific contention that though the 3rd respondent can inflict punishment, he cannot initiate the disciplinary proceedings. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Service Regulations of the Bank, more specifically, Regulations 61, 62, 63, 66, etc. While drawing the attention of this Court to Regulation 55 (2) of the Service Regulations, he submits that ‘Bank’ means ‘the Board of Management’ and it alone has power to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. He contends that if the Bank/Management takes a decision to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, the competent authority has to take further action. He submits that in the present case, there is no decision of the Management as contemplated under Regulation 63 of the Service Regulations and issuance of a Charge Sheet in the absence of such decision taken by the Bank/Management as contemplated under Rules 63, is not sustainable and therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated.

i) In elaboration, he submits that in respect of the allegations of misconduct against an employee, as per the procedure contemplated under Regulation 62 of the Service Regulations, it is the ‘Bank’ which is empowered to appoint an Enquiry Officer and Rule 66 (v) also refers to the steps to be taken by the ‘Bank’ while appointing an Enquiry Officer. As the Enquiry Officer was not appointed by the Bank, the impugned order on the basis of the report submitted by such Officer is not legal