The court upheld the disciplinary action against the petitioner for proven misconduct, affirming that the inquiry adhered to natural justice principles and the penalty of compulsory retirement was justified.

JUDGMENT :

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 14.08.2017 in W.P. (C) No.17930 of 2011 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P. (C) and respondent was the respondent therein. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the W.P. (C).

2. While working as an officer in the cadre of Manager Grade III in the respondent Bank, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet for the alleged failure in duty as Branch Manager at Kaloor Branch during the period 11.11.2005 to 24.05.2006. He was issued with Ext.P1 charge memo along with a statement of allegation of misconduct. He preferred Ext.P4 reply before the Inquiry officer, and in the inquiry that followed, the inquiring authority filed Ext.P5 report dated 24.04.2010 finding that out of the six charges levelled against the petitioner, three charges stood proved while three charges were not proved. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred Ext.P6 reply to the findings of the inquiring authority. However, without considering the same, the disciplinary authority vide Ext.P7 order dated 26.10.2010 imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. Ext.P8 appeal was preferred by the petitioner, alleging that there had been a gross violation of principles of natural justice in the appeal. However, the appellate authority rejected his appeal vide Ext.P9 order dated 05.04.2011. The Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P1, P5, P7 and P9. A counter affidavit was filed by the Bank, producing Ext.R1(a), which was a copy of the communication issued by the disciplinary authority, along with tabular analysis of the inquiry authority report made by the disciplinary authority. Petitioner, along with an affidavit, produced additional documents marked as Exts.P10 (a) to P15 to substantiate his contentions. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the W.P. (C) inter alia holding that there was no reason to interfere with the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner and that laches and lapses in discharging duty cannot be visited with any consequence other than ordering compulsory retirement from service. Challenging the said judgment, this Writ Appeal has been filed.

3. Heard, Sri. V.A. Muhammed, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri.George Thomas Mevada, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri.Amal George Advocate for the respondent Bank.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not sustainable at all. The said charges were in regard to duties and failure of duties of other officials, for which the petitioner had been made a scapegoat. In spite of the fact that the charges are not per se maintainable, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and an inquiry was conducted. Though these aspects were duly pointed out in the reply to the notice of the inquiry officer and to the appellate authorities, the same were not considered. This had led to the imposition of punishment, which is wholly unwarranted and illegal. It was contended that the imposition of a penalty on the petitioner is riddled with various illegalities and irregularities. There had been a patent violation of all principles of natural justice. The findings of the inquiry are perverse and not supported by any materials. The inquiry had been concluded without any basis of law and thoroughly vitiated, thereby warranting interference of this Court. A second show cause notice before imposition of a major penalty ought to have been issued to the petitioner, and the said requirement was not complied with. Failure to comply with the same is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The intention of the enquiry, along with the fact that he had been charge- sheeted for another set of charges, was only to make him a scapegoat for extraneous reasons. The learned Single Judge had ov