Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 817
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Packiyalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Joint Registrar/Managing Director, The Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Tirunelveli & Another – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No. 7393 of 2020 & WMP(MD) Nos. 6844 to 6846 of 2020
Decided on : 08-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :R. Karunanidhi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:D. Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of providing documents to the petitioner, continuing payment of subsistence allowance, and ensuring a fair and timely completion of the enquiry process.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Na.Ka.No.33/2020/E1(2) - The court directed the 1st respondent to furnish documents to the petitioner, continue paying subsistence allowance, appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer, and complete the enquiry within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Manager of the 1st respondent bank, challenged a charge memo issued against her and her suspension from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the 1st respondent to take specific actions regarding the furnishing of documents, payment of subsistence allowance, appointment of a new Enquiry Officer, and completion of the enquiry within a stipulated time.
Issues: Furnishing of documents, payment of subsistence allowance, permission to engage a lawyer, appointment of Enquiry Officer, completion of the enquiry, and final decision on disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 1st respondent must furnish documents to the petitioner, continue paying subsistence allowance, and appoint a new Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry within three months.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the 1st respondent, including the furnishing of documents, continuation of subsistence allowance, appointment of a new Enquiry Officer, and completion of the enquiry within a stipulated time.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certioraried Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned charge-memo issued by the 1st respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.33/2020/E1(2) dated 24.02.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all monetary and attended benefits within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.)
1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned chargememo issued by the 1st respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.33/2020/E1(2) dated 24.02.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all monetary and attended benefits within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Manager of the 1st respondent bank. While so, on 24.02.2020, a charge memo was issued against her interalia stating the imputation of charges and an enquiry also has been contemplated. Based on this disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has also been placed under suspension from February 2020 onwards. The petitioner challenging the said charge memo has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard Mr.R.Karunanidhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would make three fold submissions stating that first of all, the documents to be relied on by the employer side have not been furnished to the petitioner, despite request is being made in this regard. The second ground according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though a request was made to permit the petitioner to engage a lawyer to represent her case before the Enquiry Officer, that was denied and thirdly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that from the date of suspension till the date, no subsistence allowance has been paid. By raising all these grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry contemplated by the respondents are not appears to be proceeded in accordance with law. Therefore, the very charge itself has to be quashed and that is the reason why the present writ petition has been filed.
4. On the other hand, Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that so far, the documents sought for by the petitioner is concerned, whatever documents the petitioner sought for would be served on her, if those documents are relied on by the respondents. If the documents are not relied on by the respondents, it cannot be required to be served or furnished to the petitioner. Therefore, he would say that all those documents which are going to be relied on by the employer side would definitely be served or furnished to the petitioner.
5. Insofar as the allegation made with regard to the non payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that calculating the subsistence allowance till May 2020, the amount has been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner on 02.06.2020 and the said factor can very well be verified by the petitioner and thereafter from June 2020 onwards, the respondents would continue to pay the subsistence allowance further without fail till the completion of the enquiry.
6. So far as the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the permission seeking for to engage a lawyer on her behalf is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the law is well settled in this regard to state that in domestic enquiry, the employee is not entitled to have a lawyer or any outside person to represent and if such a denial is made by the employer or Enquiry Officer, that would not amount to denial of natural justice principle and in order to substantiate the same, the learned
