Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4581
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
P. Rajasekaran
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank, rep. by the Chairman & Managing Director & Others
W.P.No.8896 of 2000
Decided On : 02-11-2009
For the Petitioner:P. Narayanamoorthy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:C. Ravichandran, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring the proportionality of punishment to the charges in employment disputes.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Employment Dispute - Bi-partite Settlement dated 112. 1966 - 17.7 (b), 17.7 (e), 17.5 (d), 17.5 (e), 17.5 (f) - The court analyzed the violation of principles of natural justice, perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and the proportionality of punishment to the charges. The order of dismissal from service was set aside and remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Indian Overseas Bank, was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence and willful insubordination. The petitioner challenged the dismissal, alleging violation of principles of natural justice and disproportionate punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a violation of principles of natural justice in the show cause notice served to the petitioner, and the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer, proportionality of punishment to the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the violation of principles of natural justice and disproportionate punishment warranted interference with the order of dismissal.
Final Decision: The order of dismissal from service was set aside and remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration.
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 31.03.1999 including the enquiry report of the 3rd and 4th respondents dated 02.03.1999 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back benefits, promotions, etc.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this case are, as under:
.(a) The petitioner joined the services of the Indian Overseas Bank in June 1991 as Daftry/Messenger and worked in Appanthirupathy Branch; his service was confirmed in December 1991. In the deposit mobilisation, he canvassed Rs.40,000/- and Rs.2 lakhs and he was appreciated by the Bank for the same.
(b) According to the petitioner, his aged mother is suffering from a disease which needed operation in her head and she is unable to do anything independently and requires the help of a person and he had to assist her in her daily routine; moreover, he had to look after his nephew aged 12 years, as his brother an Indian Bank employee expired two years ago. That apart, the petitioner himself was suffering from Jaundice during December 1998. In such circumstances, the petitioner had to take leave on 112. 1996, 03.05.1997, 210. 1997 and on 30.12.1997, for which he was awarded a punishment of "stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect on 20.05.1998".
.(c) The petitioner would further state that he was again charge sheeted; improper enquiry was conducted and a major punishment of dismissal was awarded for availing leave. According to the petitioner, he applied for leave and for extension of leave and also sent letters to the Bank. But, the Bank has treated his leave as leave on loss of pay, conducted improper enquiry and finally, dismissed him from service. He would also state that the 1st respondent refused to receive his appeal and hence, he did not prefer any appeal. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is before this court.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated thus:
.(a) The petitioner joined the services of the Bank as a messenger on 27.06.1991 and was working at Appanthiruppathy Branch. The petitioner was on leave/unauthorised absence from April 1996 to February 1998 for 373 days. His absence was at regular intervals but not exceeding 90 days every time. For the said misconduct, the petitioner was charge sheeted and awarded with a punishment of "stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect", since he assured in writing that he would be punctual in future. The petitioners leave record did not improve and he started absenting himself again from 010. 1998 by submitting a leave letter for 15 days. Thereafter, he was extending his leave by submitting leave letter one after another. The petitioner was advised by the Regional Office, Madurai that his leave was declined and he had to report for duty immediately. But, the petitioner did not respond to the same. Hence, a charge sheet dated 211. 1998 was issued.
(b) On 14.01.1999, the petitioner came to the Branch all of a sudden and signed the attendance register without submitting leave letter and medical certificates. Thereafter, the petitioner remained absent without any information to the Branch. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with an additional charge sheet dated 23.01.1999 for failing to report for duty in response to Regional Office letter dated 111. 1998 and for failing to reply to the charge sheet under clause 17.7 (b) (c) (minor misconduct) and 17.5 (d), (e),
.(f) (Gross misconduct). An enquiry was conducted on 02.03.1999, wherein the petitioner admitted the charges unconditionally and the findings were submitted on 08.03.1999. In view of the findings, a show cause notice dated 15.03.1999 was issued to the petitioner as to why the punishment of dismissal without notice should not be imposed on him, and finally an order dated 31.03.1999 was passed awarding the punishment of dismissal without notice.
.(c) Ac
