MOHINI K Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK MANIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) should this court interfere with an order of dismissal passed against an employee who has a remedy available to him under the industrial disputes Act, against such a dismissal, is the short question that arises in this petition. Before proceeding any further however, it is appropriate to briefly state the facts in the background.

(2.) the petitioner who was working as a steno grapher in the respondent-bank was charged with certain misconduct in the discharge of her official duties which resulted in the holding of a domestic enquiry against her. The inquiry officer appointed for this purpose recorded the statements of the witnesses produced before him and finally submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. Based on the said report the petitioner was dismissed from service, which order of dismissal was challenged by way of a writ petition in this court. The writ petition was however, dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not exhausted the alternate remedy by way of an appeal that was available to her under the service rules. The dismissal of the writ petition was questioned by her in a writ appeal which also came to be rejected. The petitioner, thereafter filed an appeal against her dismissal order which was dismissed by respondent no. 1 by his order dated 30th of july, 1993. It is against this order and that passed by respondent no. 2 on 6th of may, 1993, that the present writ petition has been filed by her inter alia on the ground that the domestic enquiry held by the respondent-bank was not properly conducted nor was she given a reasonable and fair opportunity of defending herself at the same.

(3.) the respondents have appeared and filed their counter traversing in detail the averments made in the writ petition.