High Court of Judicature at Madras
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
K. Rengarajan & Others
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank, rep. by its Chief Manager/Disciplinary Authority
W.P. Nos. 10242, 13703, 14435, 14436, 15055 to 15058, 15713, 16945, 16946 & 17360 of 2014
Decided on: 05-11-2014
Malpractices - Departmental Enquiry - Clause 12 of Bipartite Settlement - [W.P.Nos.10242, 13703, 14435, 14436, 15055, 15056, 15057, 15058, 15713, 16945, 16946, 17360] - The court discussed the application of Clause 12 of the Bipartite settlement in relation to the disciplinary action, the issuance of notices requiring personal hearing on the proposed punishment, and the premature nature of the writ petitions. The court also rejected the contention of malafides and dismissed the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employees of the respondent bank, were involved in malpractices related to the absorption of temporary staff. They were suspended and faced departmental proceedings and criminal complaints.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petitions were premature and dismissed them. It also rejected the contention of malafides. The petitioners were given a further period to appear before the respondent and put forth their reply.
Issues: Premature nature of the writ petitions, application of Clause 12 of the Bipartite settlement, allegations of malafides
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petitions were premature and rejected the contention of malafides. It also discussed the application of Clause 12 of the Bipartite settlement in relation to the disciplinary action.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were given a further period to appear before the respondent and put forth their reply.
1. Writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10242, 13703, 14435 and 14436 of 2014 have been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned notices issued by the respondent, which are notices regarding personal hearing on the proposed punishment of dismissal in pursuant to the enquiry conducted. Though W.P.No.14436 of 2014 has been filed challenging the notice issued requiring personal hearing for the proposed punishment of dismissal, the same has become infructuous in view of the final orders of dismissal passed on 30.5.2014.
2. Writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15055 to 15058, 15713, 16945, 16946, 17360 of 2014 have been filed by the petitioners forbearing the respondent from proceeding with the Departmental enquiry in pursuant to the registration of the F.I.Rs against them.
3. In view of the fact that common arguments have been made by both the counsel appearing for the respective parties, petitioners, being the employees of the respondent and the respondent being the same in all these cases, they have been taken up together and disposed of by way of a common order.
4. Brief facts of the case:
The petitioners herein are employees of the respondent. Incidentally they are also the office bearers/Regional Committee members of Indian Overseas Bank Union. In total, there are about 237 Assistant General Secretaries/Regional Committee members of the Union, of which, the petitioners are few of them. Steps have been taken by the respondent to absorb temporary messengers and sweepers working in the respondent Bank subject to their fulfillment of recruitment norms. 438 temporary messengers and 539 part time sweepers were absorbed in the year 2010-2011. Several complaints have been received by the respondent over the alleged malpractices in the absorption. It has come to light that certificates produced by the temporary staff were forged and fabricated. By following the due process of law, such persons, who had illegal entry in pursuant to the forged/fabricated documents, were terminated. Those persons made complaints stating that the documents have been forged/fabricated at the instance of the petitioners, who received money and in turn promised to get employment. Accordingly, the petitioners have been suspended followed by Departmental proceedings. On the complaints given by the erstwhile employees, who were terminated, first information reports have been registered against the petitioners. Based upon the available materials, charges have been framed against the petitioners. In most of the cases, charges were framed before the registration of the complaints and in few other cases, thereafter. The investigation taken up by the Agency is yet to be completed in all these cases. Following are the factual particulars with respect to all the petitioners before this Court:
S.No. Name of the Petitioner and writ petition Nature of allegations in charge sheet Nature of allegation in FIR before CBI
1. K.Rengarajan
W.P.No.10242 of 2014,
W.P.No.16945 of 2014
(Chargesheet dt.10.05.2013)
W.P.No.13073 of 2014
(chargesheet dt.10.09.2013)
Suspended on 10.9.2013
Chargesheets
Dt.10.05.2013, 10.09.2013, 28.02.2014
Charge dt. 10.5.2013
1. Received Bribe of Rs.1 Lakh from Karuppiah for his absorption of sweeper post, for which bogus 8th Std failed transfer certificate arranged.
2. Rs.30,000/- from Soundaram, arranged 7th Std. Failed certificate to make her eligible for being absorbed as sweeper
After termination, Soundaram started working through outsourcing agency, Petitioner forced the Outsourcing agency to terminate her from their rolls.
3. Holding benami account in the name of Malathi and Mayandi. Collecting money from other staff members various amount ranging from Rs.1000 to 68,500/-from other staff members through the said account and utilizing the same.
Chargesheet dt.10.09.2013
1. Demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.30,000/-from Sundaram promising to expedite his promotion to clerical post. Received additional amount of Rs.20,000/-promising that he will be given p
K.I.Shephard and others Versus Union of India and others
Chanan Singh Versus Registrar, Co. operative Societies
Union of India and another Versus Kunisetty Satyanarayana
Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Versus Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others
Special Director and another Versus Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another
Ulagappa and others Versus Divisional Commissioner
Capt. M.Paul Anthony Versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and another, (AIR 1999 SC 1416)
Indian Overseas Bank Versus P.Ganesan and others
Indian Overseas Bank Versus P.Ganesan
Capt. M.Paul Anthony Versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.