The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner for gross misconduct, affirming that disciplinary authorities' findings are not to be interfered with unless perverse or illegal.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Punj House, Connaught Place, New Delhi and the appellate order dated 03.02.2014 passed by the Deputy General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai, punishing the petitioner with dismissal from service, after disciplinary proceedings.

2. The petitioner is an Ex-Army Man. He was a Nayak in the Indian Army and retired from service in the year 2001. He was appointed a Watchman with the Indian Overseas Bank (for short, 'the Bank') on 25.08.2005 and there does not appear to be anything to show that prior to the incident, giving rise to this writ petition, there was any dereliction or delinquency on the petitioner's part. The petitioner was charge-sheeted about making a fraudulent claim for reimbursement of medical bills to the tune of Rs.12,185/-. A charge-sheet dated 17.09.2012 was issued to the petitioner regarding the allegations that relate to the period of time when he was posted as the Armed Guard at the Arun Vihar Branch of the Bank, located in NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The charges carried in the charge-sheet, to which allusion would presently be made, carry two charges along with the statement of imputations. The petitioner denied the charges and a departmental inquiry was held on 18.04.2013 and concluded the same day i.e. 18.04.2013. The management produced eight documents, whereas the petitioner produced two in his defence. The management examined two witnesses whereas the petitioner examined one. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report, holding both charges proved, apart from statement of allegation Nos.1, 2 and 3 also proved. The inquiry report was submitted on 07.06.2013.

3. The Disciplinary Authority, that is to say, the Chief Regional Manager vide order dated 24.09.2013 proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty on all allegations under the articles of charges found proved against him by the Inquiry Officer and punished him with dismissal from service for an act of gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause 5(d) and Clause 5(j) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002, executed between the Bank and its workmen. The petitioner, by his appeal dated 25.10.2013, appealed the order dated 24.09.2013 to the Appellate Authority under the memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002, that is to say, the Deputy General Manager of the Bank, sitting at Chennai. The Appellate Authority concurred in the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed the punishment of dismissal vide his order dated 13.02.2014, dismissing the petitioner's appeal.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 13.02.2014 by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has instituted the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. A notice of motion was issued to the respondents vide order dated 11.09.2014. It appears that a counter affidavit was filed by the Union of India on 24.09.2018, to which a rejoinder dated 28.09.2019 was filed. These affidavits were not traceable on record, and, accordingly, the Court, vide order dated 05.12.2022, directed those affidavits to be traced. The office report dated 24.05.2023 indicates that according to the computer database, no counter affidavit has been filed by the Union of India and the office was unable to trace the rejoinder either. Apparently, the Unio