The punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner, especially considering that the petitioner had not been given any prior warning or opportunity to improve his performance.

ORDER :

Heard the Counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 13.06.2011 in proceedings no.Rc.4987/2010 passed by the 2nd respondent and as confirmed by the order dated 02.01.2012 vide letter no. 237 of 2012 passed by the 3rd respondent as being illegal and arbitrary.

3. The case of the Petitioner as per the Writ Affidavit, is as follows:

a) Petitioner had been appointed as CEO of Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Karimnagar on 25.02.1999. A charge memo dated 11.05.2009 had been issued by the 3rd respondent, on the petitioner bearing no. 4074 of 2009, levelling 16 charges for alleged irregularity in sanction and disbursement of gold loans, lack of supervision among others.

b) Petitioner had submitted explanation to the charge memo dated 15.06.2009 and the 4th respondent had been appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry into the charges framed and vide Letter no. Rc.4/2009/DE, dated 19.12.2009 submitted report holding, 13 out of 16 charges levelled against the petitioner were proved.

c) On the perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 3rd respondent issued show-cause notice dated 12.03.2010 vide proceedings no. Rc-5209/2010 holding 16 charges against the petitioner.

d) Out of the 16 charges, 13 charges were held proved against the petitioner and the 3rd respondent vide impugned order dated 02.01.2012 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service as Chief Executive Officer of the bank vide order dated 13.06.2011.

e) Aggrieved, petitioner filed Statutory Appeal before the appellate authority (Respondent no.1) on 27.06.2011 and the 1st respondent confirmed the order passed by the 3rd respondent on 02.01.2012.

f) The punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner and in many of the charges, it wasn’t just the petitioner, who was responsible but several other officers/clerks were also responsible and none of them were subjected to any disciplinary enquiry and hence the impugned order is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

g) Moreover, the Enquiry Officer, the 4th respondent herein is below the rank of Deputy Registrar/Chief Executive Officer of the respondent bank and therefore the enquiry conducted is vitiated and domestic enquiry was not conducted as per bye law no.19 of the Special Bye Laws governing the service conditions/regulations of the employees of the respondent bank.

h) Moreso, the charges framed against the petitioner pertains to series of acts over a period of 7 years during which the petitioner had acted as Chief Executive Officer and during these 7 years, 2 (Two) Managing Committees and 3 Chairmans have changed and it is unfair on part of respondent to consolidate all charges without pointing out any of those at the appropriate time and this was only done to magnify the case out of proportion with the objective to punish the petitioner. Hence this Writ Petition.

4. The Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 5th Respondent, in particular, at Paras 16, 19, 21, 27, 29 read as under :

“16. In reply to Para 5 (f) it is submitted that as per model service rules of the Bank clause f(ii) of Rule 22, "No employee shall proceed on leave without prior sanction of such leave by the competent authority". For cadre-I of the Bank Staff, the casual leave sanctioning authority is the Chairman of the Bank. The petitioner has violated the service rules of the bank and behaved on his own accord and he stated that there is no need to obtain prior permission of the President of the Bank for applying casual leave and therefore it does not tantamount to indiscipline. This shows that he is not aware of service rules of the Bank.

19. In reply to Para 5 (i) it is submitted that as per the Bank Bye-laws No. 31, the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank is held responsible for every consequence. The Chief Executive Officer is the guardian