C NAGARAJA BHAT Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of the Canara Bank. By an order dated 30-7-1983 passed by the Board of Directors of the said Bank, the dismissal order dated 13-10-1981 made by the General Manager-2nd respondent herein came to be confirmed, as a result of which, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that the dismissal order passed by the 2nd respondent and confirmed in appeal by the 1st respondent is vitiated and it is illegal in as much as there was no fair play and observance of rules of natural justice in the enquiry conducted on the alleged charges on the basis of which he was dismissed.

(2.) Most of the facts are not in dispute. The petition is elaborately documented and therefore affords no difficulty. As evidenced by Annexure-E to the petition, articles of charge were served on the petitioner on or after 18-1-1978, the date the charge-sheet bears. The charge-sheet is signed by the General Manager who is the Disciplinary Authority under the Canara Bank Officer Employees'(Conduct) Regulations, 1976,(hereinafter referred to as the Conduct Regulations). They relate to events that took place on 3-3-1976, 15-12-1975, 19-12-1975, 31-12-1975 and among other things, it specified that the petitioner had acted without honesty and integrity and in a way unbecoming a Bank Officer thereby committing gross misconduct under Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations. It also contained the statement of imputations. But it was not accompanied by any document. However, the charge memo at the very begining required the delinquent-officer, the petitioner, to furnish his explanations to the charge sheet in writing within 15 days of the receipt of the charge memo, as the enquiry was proposed to be held against him.

(3.) By explanation in writing dated 1st May, 1978 as at Annexure- F to the petition, the petitioner complained of ambiguity in the charge and required some clarification to file his written statement of defence. He was informed by a letter as at Annexure-G to the petition(a true copy) that the charges were clear and he must submit his explanation within 10 days of the receipt of that letter. But, no clarification was furnished. Fifteen questions were addressed to the 2nd respondent by Annexure-H dated 19th July, 1978.