Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 248
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN, J.
M. Selvaraj
Versus
The Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, & Another
W.P. No. 4053 of 1998 & W.P.M.P. No. 375 of 2012
Decided on: 04-02-2014
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:C.R. Chandrasekaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:N.G.R. Prasad, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for disciplinary authorities to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving alleged contravention of regulations and misconduct.
Headnote:
Illegal Gratification - Disciplinary Action - Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employee (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 - Sections 3(i) and 3(ii) - Regulation 24 - Reduction in basic pay by 5 stages with cumulative effect - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the charges under Sections 3(i) and 3(ii) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employee (Conduct) Regulation, 1976, and the application of Regulation 24 in imposing the penalty of reduction in basic pay by 5 stages with cumulative effect.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Indian Overseas Bank, was charged with contravening regulations of Sections 3(i) and 3(ii) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employee (Conduct) Regulation, 1976, for granting IRDP loans through a middleman. The petitioner denied the charges, citing adherence to procedures and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were not substantiated, as the middleman was not examined, and the loan sanction process involved a Task Force Committee and government officials, not solely at the discretion of the Bank Manager.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged contravention of regulations, the lack of evidence to substantiate the charges, and the involvement of a middleman in the loan sanction process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges were not proven, as the loan sanction process involved multiple authorized parties and lacked evidence of illegal gratification. The court also emphasized the necessity of relevant witnesses and the duty of the disciplinary authorities to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order of disciplinary action against the petitioner.
1. The writ petitioner is filing this writ petition challenging the order of the 1st respondent viz., the Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Indian Overseas Bank, dated 18.09.1995, enforcing penalty of reduction in basic pay by 5 stages with cumulative effect as confirmed by the order of the 2nd respondent herein/the General Manager, Appellate Authority attached with Indian Overseas Bank, dated 24.02.1997.
2. The petitioner submits that he is a Post Graduate in Economics and also a holder of C.A.H.B. He was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent (I.O.B) Bank on 05.01.1997 and was posted to Keelakaranai Branch of Indian Overseas Bank. He was promoted as Officer Grade-I, in the Junior Manager Grade-I on 01.08.1981 and was posted to Regional Office of Indian Overseas Bank at Ahmedabad, Gujarat State. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Manager and was posted in the same place, he was officiating in the post of Manager, in the same branch on and from 23.04.1987. Thereafter he was promoted as Manager and was posted to Vembakottai branch and he joined duty on 07.03.1988. The petitioner initially collected huge deposits in the said branch which stood at Rs.15,00,000/- and raised the same to Rs.54.22 lakhs within a period of one year. Therefore, he was given the award for the best performing Manager among the Rural branches of the Indian Overseas Bank. Thereafter, he was promoted to the middle management Grade-II and was posted to the Central Office of the respondent Bank at Chennai as Officer in the SSI Department, incharge of Madurai and Trichy Zone.
3. Under some circumstances, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated 12.03.1992, containing as much as eleven charges on the ground that the petitioner had contravened regulations of Sections 3(i) and 3 (ii) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employee (Conduct) Regulation, 1976. The charges against the petitioner is that the petitioner granted IRDP loans to various persons through middle man. After receiving the charge sheet, the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 11.05.1992, explaining the circumstances under which he had sanctioned the loan by adopting the procedures in vogue. Even though, the petitioner was issued with a 2nd charge memo-cum-suspension order by the 1st respondent/Deputy General Manager, attached to Indian Overseas Bank containing as many as 14 charges. The order of suspension was revoked on 13.06.1992. The petitioner had submitted his explanation to the 2nd charge memo also. Not satisfied with the explanation the respondent directed for an inquiry to be conducted. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was issued with an impugned order from the 1st respondent dated 18.09.1995.
4. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner prepared an appeal on 31.11.1995 and the same was rejected by the General Manager, Appellate Authority/2nd respondent herein on 24.02.1997. The 2nd respondent issued a charge sheet dated 12.03.1992, stating that the petitioner had contravened Regulations 3(1) and 3(3) of Indian Overseas Bank Officers Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976, a breach of which amounts to misconduct in terms of regulation 24. In and by the said charge sheet as many as eleven charges were made against the petitioner, the grant of Intentive Rural Development Programme (IRDB) small loans when the petitioner was Branch Manager of Vembakkottai branch of the respondent's bank, it was also alleged that the petitioner had received illegal gratification from a middleman called Rathinavel. The petitioner further submits that the basis for charges in all the eleven charges was that the petitioner received illegal gratification through the middleman Rathinavel for sanction of loan. In this connection it is relevant to point out that the middleman Mr.Rathinavel was not at all examined in the enquiry. On a reading of the proceedings of the inquiry it is clear that there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the c
