Show-Cause-Notices issued by an entity without designated authority violate service regulations, rendering them invalid and necessitating re-issuance by competent officials.

ORDER :

MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.

Since all the writ petitions arise out of the Show-Cause-Notices issued by the 2^nd respondent Bank under the identical facts and circumstances, these matters are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. All the petitioners herein are the employees of the 2^nd respondent Bank, who were placed under suspension by the 2^nd respondent Bank authorities on the allegations that the petitioners colluded with gold appraisers and got issued loans on spurious gold, resulting in financial loss to the 2^nd respondent Bank. In that regard, two criminal cases were lodged against the petitioners and other employees.

3. It is further case of the petitioners that the 2^nd respondent Bank suspended all the petitioners and subsequently, they got issued Charge Memos alleging specific charges. In reply to the said Charge Memos, petitioners offered their explanations and the 2^nd respondent in dissatisfaction, appointed Enquiry Officers, who inturn conducted enquiries and submitted their respective reports holding that the majority of charges framed against the petitioners were proved.

4. Pursuant to the Enquiry Reports/Vigilance files, individuals who are other than the competent punishment authority of the 2^nd respondent Bank issued Show-Cause-Notices individually to the petitioners proposing to award major penalty of dismissal from service as well as recovery of the amount towards loss incurred by the Bank.

-

5. Challenging the said Show-Cause-Notices issued by the 2^nd respondent Bank authorities against the petitioners, the instant writ petitions are filed mainly on the ground of violation of Rule 66 (xii) of Service Regulations of the Employees of District Cooperative Central Bank of Ltd., Prakasam, and the said Show-Cause-Notices are liable to be interdicted on the point of incompetency of the issuing authority.

6. Heard Y. Sitharam, learned counsel representing Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P No.9795 of 2015 and Smt. Deepika Gadde, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P Nos.10623, 10625 and 10628 of 2015 and also heard Sri C. Ravi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent Bank in all the cases as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation. None appeared for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.11062, 11127 and 42259 of 2015.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits solely on the point that the Show-Cause-Notices are issued without jurisdiction and contrary to Chapter X, Rule 66(xii) of the Service Regulations of the Employees of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited., Prakasam, which specifically stipulates the punishment authority and the appellate authority based on the employee categories and nature of punishment, etc. However, the said provisions were not followed in the present batch of cases, and the Show-Cause-Notices issued against the petitioners are liable to be set aside.

-

8. Conversely, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent Bank, fairly submits that in view of administrative exigencies prevailing at the relevant point of time, the Show-Cause-Notices were issued by the officers, who were not designated as punishment authority against the petitioners proposing to impose the major penalties, but not with any malafide intention. The learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of the interim orders passed in favour of the petitioners by this court in respect of Show-Cause- Notices, directed against them, the 2^nd respondent Bank is facing multifarious problems. He also contends that although the Show-Cause-Notices were issued by authorities lacking the requisite competenc