Disciplinary proceedings quashed, entitling employee to all consequential benefits.

Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In both the cases the common issue involved is about the inordinate delay in respect of charge memo issued to the petitioner concerned who was working as a manager in the respondent Co-operative Bank. In both these writ petitions the respondent Bank is a Co-operative Bank registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and the provisions of the said Act and Rules made thereunder are applicable. The respondent bank is governed by its own bye-laws.

3. The petitioner joined in the services of the respondent bank as a manager with effect from 23.3.1973 and he has been serving the bank diligently and sincerely. The respondent has framed charge memos against the petitioner on 6.10.2003, 19.11.2001 in respect of some financial loss to the bank in granting loans. The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the charges on 7.2.2004, 10.1.2002. The charge relates to in the year 1998 and in the year 1992 respectively and even after submitting an explanation, till date, no order has been passed. In the meantime, the petitioner has been denied due promotion on the basis of the pendency of the charges.

4. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner's contention is that there has been an inordinate delay, in initiating disciplinary proceedings. In the first case, in respect of the incident which has taken place in the year 1998, the charges were framed in 2003. In the later case, in respect of an incident which has taken place in the year 1992, the charges were framed in 2001. At every stage, there has been delay and even after show cause notice issued based on the enquiry report after submitting his explanation there has been a delay of nearly 18 months till date. This not only is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and whose avenue of promotion is affected but also against the hierarchy of judgments of the Supreme Court and the long delay in initiating the disciplinary proceeding makes the entire proceeding as one vitiated in law.

5. In both the cases, the petitioner challenging the second show cause notice dated 22.4.2004 and 3.10.2003. Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there has been inordinate delay in both the cases not only in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner but even after second show cause notice was issued, for the past 18 months no order has been passed. Even as per the second show cause notice, the proposed punishment, in respect of the first case is the stoppage of six months increments with cumulative effects and in the second case for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,74,303. It is based on the said proposed punishment the entire disciplinary proceeding has been dragged on. Even after the second show cause notice, the petitioner has given his explanation on 25.5.2004, 27.2.2004 respectively and in spite of the same after nearly two years no order has been passed. Considering the circumstance that even if the punishment has been inflicted in time, the petitioner would not have suffered the loss of promotion.

6. That apart, it is the case of the senior counsel for the petitioner that the incidents in respect of which charges have been framed themselves relate to 1998 in the first case and 1992 in the second case. Therefore, looking into any angle, the long delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and also conducting the proceedings would vitiate the entire charge memo as such.

7. The learned senior counsel would rely upon the latest judgment of the Apex Court rendered in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board 2005 (4) CTC 403, for the proposition that inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and protracted disciplinary proceedings was more than punishment and on that basis, the charge memos were quashed.

8. On the other hand, Mr. K.V. Vijayakumar, the learned Special Government Pleader app