O R D E R

Facts of the case:

The writ on hand has been filed challenging the Award dated

30.12.2016 passed in I.D.No.9 of 2016.

2. The State Bank of India is the petitioner.

3. The petitioners state that as per the administrative exigencies, periodical transfers of employees are carried out in the petitioner / Bank. The petitioner / Bank is having administrative office at No.2, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Madurai. During December 2013, certain employees in the Madurai region were transferred to various other branches. 3 employees namely K.Rajendran, Senior Assistant was transferred from administrative office to nearby branch situated at Lady Doak College, Madurai, S.Mayilerinathan, Senior Head Messenger was transferred within the premises of administrative office and the 2nd respondent in the present writ petition Mr.A.Ramamoorthi, Special Assistant was transferred from Tallakulam branch to Natham branch within Madurai City. All employees were given sufficient joining time to report to the transferred office / branch.

4. Mr.K.Rajendran protested against the order of transfer on

11.01.2014 at about 2:30 p.m. He along with S.Mayilerinathan and the 2nd respondent indulged in unauthorised sit-in-dharna, which lasted till 11:00 a.m. on 12.01.2014. Though the Chief Manager (HR) along with other officials instructed the 2nd respondent and two other employees mentioned above to leave the place and not indulge in disorderly conduct, 2nd respondent and the other two employees continued to hold sit-in-dharna in the administrative office. The 2nd respondent herein during the sit-in-dharna in a disorderly and indecent manner, demanded the production of attendance register relating to administrative office from the officials, who were present there so as to enable Mr.K.Rajendran to sign the attendance register. The 2nd respondent also abetted other staff members to participate in the dharna to engage forcefully against the officials. When, Mr.K.Rajendran sought for some clarification in the order of transfer and it was furnished to him, the 2nd respondent repeatedly pressurised and demanded modification in the written clarification provided to Mr.K.Rajendran. This resulted in the detention of officials in the office premises situated at the administrative office from 2:30 p.m. on 11.01.2014 to 11:00 a.m. on next day 12.01.2014.

5. This disorderly behaviour of the 2nd respondent forced the officials to lodge a criminal complaint to the police authorities on 12.01.2014. These incidents portrayed the image of the Bank poorly in the eyes of general public and customers. These incidents were published in the Tamil Newpaper “Dinamalar”. The private television channel “Pudhiya Thalaimurai” also aired the above incident. This caused loss of image and reputation to the petitioner Bank. Further, on 12.01.2014, the 2nd respondent arranged to bring outsiders to the administrative office, Madurai and abetted them to force the Bank authorities to permit Mr.K.Rajendran to rejoin duty at administrative office, Madurai.

6. In respect of the misconducts as stated above, the petitioner / Bank issued a charge sheet dated 21.03.2014 to the 2nd respondent, as the explanation submitted by 2nd respondent was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry was held by following the procedures as contemplated. The 2nd respondent was represented by a defence representative in the enquiry. The enquiry was held on 11 sittings commencing from 02.06.2014 to 09.09.2014. 10 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were marked in support of the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent examined Mr.K.Rajendran as his witness and filed two documents.

7. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 27.01.2015, held that the 2nd respondent was guilty of all the charges levelled against him. By letter dated 14.02.2015, a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the 2nd respondent, requiring him to make his submissions on the findings of th