Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
M. Swaminathan – Appellant
Versus
Corporation Bank Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Mangalore – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 08.05.2014 passed by the first respondent, confirming the order dated 09.11.2013 passed by the second respondent. By the order dated 08.05.2014, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction to a lower grade, as envisaged under Regulation 4(g) of the Corporation Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982, on the finding that Charge Nos. 1 and 2 stood proved.
2. The petitioner, while serving as Senior Manager/Chief Manager, Chennai – Personal Banking Branch, was issued a charge memo dated 03.03.2012. The charge memo, along with the statement of allegations, reads as follows:
“Article of Charge No.1
That the Executive, in gross abuse of his official position, in utter violation of CHOME Scheme guidelines and in connivance with the builder viz., Shri.Kathiresan G., continuously sanctioned / disbursed a large number of CHOME loans to certain employees of the Corporation, by not conducting proper due diligence exercise about the builder and not ensuring proper appraisal/pre/post sanction verification of the loans and allowed the funds to be siphoned off by the builder in a large number
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, and failure to provide relevant evidence undermines the validity of proceedings.
Removal from Service - Committed irregularities - Procedure for imposing major penalties - Power of judicial review available to High Court as also to this Court under Constitution takes in its strid....
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
Distinct allegations against employee charged in the same transaction would be justified being based on a valid classification and no perversity or arbitrariness can be alleged in the process.
The court established that disciplinary actions must be timely and substantiated by evidence, and that employees cannot be held accountable for actions not identified within the stipulated time frame....
The court emphasized the importance of upholding integrity and diligence in discharging duties, as per the RHFL Regulations, and limited the scope of judicial review in service matters.
Departmental proceedings initiated without the appointing authority's approval are void, and failure to provide access to relevant documents violates natural justice principles.
Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ Regulation, 1977 did not stipulate granting of an opportunity to represent against disagreement recorded by Disciplinary Authority.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
