2000 Supreme(Ker) 202
Judges : ARIJIT PASAYAT,K S RADHAKRISHNAN
A.G.M.Private, Syndicate Bank and Others - Appellant
Versus
B.K.Mahim - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 1531/1997
Decided On : 04/06/2000
Advocates Appeared :
M. P. Ashok Kumar, P. Ravindran, Advocates
Headnote:
Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1976, Reg. 3(g) - Witnesses - Inquiring Authority - Officer Employees - Evidence - Court are therefore of opinion that finding of single Judge that there is no evidence to support charges is erroneous - Contention of counsel for delinquent officer that punishment was imposed by incompetent officer cannot be sustained - Present case order of dismissal was passed by Personnel Manager - Regulation Syndicate Bank Officer Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations deals with authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties -Held, Even assumed that enquiry officer initially appointed was junior to delinquent officer in service there was no justification for delinquent officer in not co-operating with enquiry proceedings and delaying enquiry - Further change of enquiry officer would not vitiate the proceedings already held and evidence recorded - Regulation of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees Discipline and Appeal - Regulations stipulates that whenever any inquiring authority after having heard and recorded whole any part of evidence in an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another inquiring authority which has and which exercises such jurisdiction inquiring authority succeeding may act on evidence so recorded by its predecessor or partly recorded by its predecessor and partly recorded by itself -Order accordingly
Per K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
This appeal is preferred by the Syndicate Bank and its officers against the judgment of the learned single Judge interfering with the order of dismissal of the first respondent from service on the basis of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Learned single Judge also set aside the enquiry report dated July 20, 1989 and various orders issued pursuant thereto.
Short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows. One M. Damodaran, applied for a vehicle loan of Rs. 17, 000/- from the Mulleria Branch of the Syndicate Bank for the purchase of a new autorikshaw. First respondent was functioning as the Manager of the said Branch at that time. First respondent-delinquent Officer agreed to arrange the loan, and as a precondition complainant was directed to remit margin money of Rs. 6000/-. Complainant remitted the margin money in various instalments, final instalment of which was remitted on September 1, 1984. For sanctioning the loan, delinquent officer demanded a sum of Rs. 2, 000/- which the complainant found difficult to pay. Complainant later visited the bank on October 5, 1984 and made enquiries about his loan application. Delinquent officer informed the complainant to come after a few days. When the complainant met him on October 12, 1984 he reiterated the demand.
Complainant then filed a complaint before the Central Bureau of Investigation, Cochin, about the illegal demand made by the delinquent officer. CBI took up the complaint and decided to lay a trap. Thomas John, Inspector, CBI registered R.C. No. 23 of 1984 against the delinquent officer, and he along with Inspector Vijayakumar and other CBI officials reached Kasaragod at about 9 p.m. on October 16, 1984. On October 17, 1984, they secured the presence of K. Kumaran, Inspector (Complaints) (Postal) and the presence of C. K. Narayanan, Head Clerk, Income-tax Office, Kasaragod, to witness the trap. On October 17, 1984, at about 9.45 a.m. the Inspector demonstrated Soda Phenolpthalein test in the presence of complainant, Kumaran and Narayanan and prepared an entrustment mahazar. An amount of Rs. 1, 000/- produced by the complainant was returned to him with specific instruction to hand over the same to the delinquent officer if he repeated his demand for the bribe. The notes were smeared wit phenolphthalein powder before the same were entrusted with the complainant.Inspector Thomas John, complainant, Kumaran, Narayanan and other CBI officials reached the premises of the bank. Complainant proceeded to the bank along with Kumaran. Complainant then entered the room of the delinquent officer and occupied the chair placed in front of him. At that time Inspector Thomas John and Narayanan were standing in the verandah of the bank. Kumaran stood in front of the counter under the pretext of getting some forms from the bank. Delinquent officer enquired from the complainant about the money. Complainant replied that he had brought Rs. 1000/-. Delinquent officer insisted that balance amount of Rs. 1000/- should also be paid for which the complainant agreed. Complainant then took the currency notes from his pocket and handed over the same to the delinquent officer. Delinquent officer accepted the currency notes with his right hand and after counting the same he kept it on his table. The incident, happened at about 12.15 p.m. on October 17, 1984. On receipt of the money by the delinquent officer, complainant came out of the cabin and showed the prearranged signal. Inspector Thomas John, Inspector Vijayakumar and other members of the party accordingly entered the cabin of the delinquent officer and arrested him. Thereafter delinquent officer's right hand fingers were subjected to the sodium carbonate solution test which yielded positive result.
CBI then initiated enquiry in the matter and lodged a First Information Report No. RC 23/1984 dated October 16, 1984 before the Special Judge, CBI/SPE, Ernakulam. B