IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision emphasizes the importance of conducting disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the applicable regulations and considering the petitioner's long tenure before imposing the punishment.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 2 Dt.30.11.2017 as arbitrary, illegal, irrational, unilateral and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and pass such other order…”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working with the Respondent bank as an Assistant General Manager. The petitioner had been placed under suspension on 28.07.2014, and a chargesheet dated 28.10.2016 was issued to him along with two annexures detailing the articles of charge and the list of loans approved by the petitioner while he was working as the Chief Manager of the Gudivada Branch. The petitioner was called for a domestic enquiry, which was conducted on 14.02.2017, and the findings of the domestic enquiry were issued to the petitioner vide a letter dated 24.07.2017. Based on the said enquiry report, the 3rd respondent, General Manager (HR) & Disciplinary Authority, Andhra Bank, issued orders for dismissal of the petitioner from service under Regulation 4(j) of Andhra Bank Officer Employees’ (Dismissal &Appeal) Regulations vide a letter Lr. No. 666/20/V/T-1568/430, dated 21.08.2017. The petitioner, aggrieved by the above order, preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent, The Executive Director and Appellate Authority, who, after perusing the evidence available on record, upheld the decision of the 2nd respondent, vide a speaking order dated 30.11.2017, which is the impugned order herein.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 30.11.2017 is illegal, owing to procedural lapses and violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the respondent bank should treat the period from the date of his suspension to the date of his retirement, as on duty with all consequential benefits.

3(1) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner pertain to his tenure as the Chief Manager of the Gudivada Branch of the respondent bank, where he served from May 2008 to June 2011. The petitioner was later promoted as an Assistant General Manager in the respondent bank in 2011 and was posted to the Chandigarh Zonal Office before being placed under suspension. He further submits that the petitioner had been serving in the respondent bank since 1980 and his long service has been acknowledged by his promotion as an Assistant General Manager.

3(2) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent bank had violated the procedural norms meant for delinquent officers to conduct the inquiry, and imposed a major penalty of ‘dismissal from service’, that too without any pensionary benefits. He further contended that the dismissal order was passed by the 2nd respondent on 21.08.2017 and was received by the petitioner on 27.08.2017, and the same was ordered just ten days before his retirement, which was due on 31.08.2017. He contended that the suspension order was bad in law as the same had been issued without the issuance of any show-cause notice and without seeking an explanation from the petitioner. He further contended that the suspension was ordered after a lapse of nearly three years from the transfer of the petitioner from the Gudivada Branch. Thus, this shows that the respondent authorities had a prejudiced mind while dealing with the petitioner’s case.

3(3) It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the show-cause notice was issued after a long delay of six months from the date of his suspension, which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings. He also contended that the respondent authorities arbitrarily conducted the proceedings within two days and that his pleadings were not given a proper hearing. He further claimed that throughout his tenure as the