Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
S.Gunasekar - Petitioner
Vs.
State Bank of India Rep. By its Regional Manager-RBO-I – Respondent
W.P.No.26780 of 2016 and WMP.No.23030 of 2016
Decided on : 20-09-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Balan Haridas
For the Respondent: Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr. S.Ravindran
The duty of citizens under the Constitution, the legal provisions related to sick leave, and the disciplinary proceedings influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Circulation of Defamatory Pamphlets - Disciplinary Proceedings - Medical Board Constitution - State Bank of India - [SICK LEAVE, DEFAMATORY PAMPHLETS, MEDICAL BOARD] - [Rule 12.2(e) of leave Rules, Article 51A(j) of the Constitution, Regulation 50(4) of the Service Rules] - The court discussed the declining of sick leave, constitution of Medical Board, and the circulation of defamatory pamphlets by the petitioner. It highlighted the legal provisions related to sick leave, disciplinary proceedings, and the duty of citizens under the Constitution. The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's past conduct, the nature of the allegations, and the impending retirement of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India, circulated defamatory pamphlets against higher officials and sought sick leave, which was declined. The court analyzed the allegations, the petitioner's health condition, and the past conduct of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's circulation of defamatory pamphlets and the declining of sick leave were the main issues. It also considered the petitioner's past conduct, health condition, and impending retirement.
Issues: The main issues were the declining of sick leave, the circulation of defamatory pamphlets, and the constitution of the Medical Board. The court also considered the petitioner's past conduct and impending retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions related to sick leave, disciplinary proceedings, and the duty of citizens under the Constitution. It also took into account the petitioner's past conduct, the nature of the allegations, and the impending retirement of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to discharge the petitioner from service with all retirement benefits, including pensionary benefits, on the condition that the petitioner deposits a fine amount. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
The petitioner is working in the respondent/Bank as Special Associate. He is also the General Secretary of the State Bank of India, Ambedkar Trade Union and State Bank of India SC/ST Welfare Association and has been fighting for his efficient administration of the Bank.
2. Quite often, huge chunk of money was missing from various branches of the respondent/Bank in Tamilnadu. The Union Representative of the respondent/Bank is to take effective measures to stop the cash missing from the cash chest. Since no action was taken, the Union issued circulated Posters and called upon the Chief Manager to resign taking moral responsibility. Therefore, the petitioner was charge sheeted earlier on 10.03.2007 regarding printing and pasting and regarding the functioning of the Bank. The petitioner challenged the said charge sheet and finally the charge sheet was quashed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.356 of 2006. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated on 24.08.2015.
3. The respondent/Bank, in order to wreck vengeance, issued a charge memo on 13.05.2016 stating that in March 2016, he circulated defamatory pamphlets against the higher officials. Due to his deteriorating health conditions, the petitioner applied for sick leave on 04.06.2016 and the same was declined. Through letter dated 15.06.2016, the second respondent called upon the petitioner to appear before the third respondent/Medical Officer and the said Medical Officer referred the petitioner to the Billroth Hospital, Chennai on 20.06.2016. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a communication on 22.06.2016 stating that the third respondent constituted a Medical Board and called upon the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board on 27.06.2016 at Billroth Hospital, Chennai. The petitioner, by communication dated 24.06.2016, tested against the Constitution of the Medical Board in Billroth Hospital, Chennai. However, he submitted himself before the said Board on 27.06.2016. On 30.06.2016, the petitioner gave a representation to constitute a proper Medical Board in State Government Hospital or Central Government Hospital.
4. Thereafter the petitioner gave an interim explanation to the charge memo on 06.07.2016. On 12.07.2016, the first respondent appointed the fourth respondent as an Enquiry Officer. Meanwhile, the petitioner has become more sick and therefore, he has been admitted as in- patient in Tamil Nadu Government Multi Super Speciality Hospital. The second respondent, through letter dated 15.07.2016, enclosing the medical board report given by the Billroth Hospital, Chennai, informed that the petitioner does not require rest and called upon to report to work. Though the petitioner was discharged on 21.07.2016, subsequently on admission, the petitioner is taking treatment as in-patient for various health problems.
5. In those circumstances, the petitioner is before this court seeking a declaration that the action of the first respondent/Bank declining sick leave by order dated 07.06.2016 and referring the petitioner to the private hospital for medical examination and consequently, seeks a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to constitute a Medical Board in Government Hospital in State Government Hospital or in Central Government Hospital to ascertain the health condition of the petitioner and other reliefs.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 contending that during March, 2016, the petitioner published and distributed pamphlets at various places including Administrative Offices at Madurai and Chennai and local offices, Chennai containing unfounded allegations of abetment of corruption against Chairman of the Bank and other officials regarding recovery of loan from Kingfisher Airlines Limited. Since the allegations against the Chairman was made with malafide intention, the petitioner was given a show cause notice on 25.04.2016. As no reply was received, a charge sheet was issued on 13.05.2016 for gross misconduct as per
