Intentional avoidance of participation in enquiry proceedings waives the plea of natural justice and estops the petitioner from questioning the non-compliance of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in pursuant to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 03.03.2014 and Communicated by the 1st respondent vide No.Dis/Con/ 1257 dated 04.03.2014 and rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent vide A & R -181 dated 30.06.2014 and quash both of them and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service of the respondent bank with all consequential benefits.)

The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the punishment of dismissal imposed on the writ petitioner, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

2. The writ petitioner states that he was initially appointed as an Officer Marketing and Recovery (Rural) on contract basis on 01.03.2010 and subsequently, his service was confirmed as JMGS-I (RMRO) from 01.04.2011 by the 2nd respondent. Initially the petitioner was posted at Tirupattur Branch, Vellore District and thereafter, transferred to Vaniyambadi Branch. The 1st respondent placed the writ petitioner under suspension in proceedings dated 04.01.2012 and the departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated regarding certain financial irregularities and the petitioner in his letter dated 12.02.2012, intimated his address as No.623, 40th Street, Phase-II, Satuvachari, Vellore-9, Vellore District. The allegations against the writ petitioner are that “You failed to adhere to systems and procedure for up keep of ATM Pin Mailers, undelivered / returned ATM cards, which led to the perpetration of fraud amounting to Rs.5,51,000/-.” The petitioner was called upon to offer his explanations to the charges. The petitioner offered his explanations vide letter dated 29.01.2012, stating that he was not the in-charge for the undelivered / returned ATM cards and the separate officer was entrusted with the said job. The petitioner states that he made a request to furnish full particulars regarding the alleged loss of Rs.5,51,000/- in order to enable him to give a more detailed explanation. However, those details were not furnished to the writ petitioner. The charge sheet dated 28.05.2013 was issued and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner states that when the enquiry proceedings were under consideration, the respondents issued the order of punishment of dismissal from service in terms of Rule No.67 (J) of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules. The 2nd respondent called upon the petitioner to appear before him in person for personal hearing on 22.02.2014 at 10.15 a.m. at Chennai Local Head Office for the purpose of making his submissions in person if any. The petitioner states that he appeared before the 2nd respondent on 22.02.2014 and made his submissions orally and also in writing. The petitioner has stated that he had not been served with any of the proceedings including the charge sheet dated 28.05.2013, enquiry notice, Enquiry Officer's notice dated 17.12.2013 and other materials relied upon by the respondent / Bank. The petitioner further stated before the 2nd respondent during the personal hearing that he had already intimated the office about his change of address in letter dated 12.02.2012 and in spite of the said factum, the relevant proceedings were not served on him. The petitioner made a request to reopen the enquiry and provide an opportunity to him to defend his case. However, the 2nd respondent issued the order of dismissal from service. The petitioner approached the High Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.9673 of 2014 and this Court granted liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an Appeal and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the same. Consequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also rejected. Thus, the petitioner moved the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the order of dismissal was issued based on ex-parte enquiry.