GIREESAN Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
LAWS(KER)-1993-12-14
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on December 08,1993

GIREESAN Appellant
VERSUS
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

K. SRINIVASA RAO V. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE [REFERRED TO]
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
S A VENKATARANAN PETITIONER VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]





JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P.804/1989. Petitioner is the appellant.
(2.)Petitioner was a Shroff/Godown-keeper attached to the Trivandrum Branch of 1st respondent, the Indian Overseas Bank. For certain misconduct he was charged sheeted by the bank and proceeded against in terms of bipartite settlement between the 1st respondent and its workmen represented by All India Overseas Bank Employees' Union: Petitioner was kept under suspension and an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer found petitioner guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. The disciplinary authority proposed to dismiss him from service and he was asked to show cause against the proposed punishment. After the receipt of his explanation the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of discharge. An appeal was preferred against this order. The appellate authority, the Deputy General Manager, reduced the punishment to one of stoppage of five future increments with cumulative effect. Pursuant to that order petitioner rejoined duty on 11-4-1984. In the meanwhile the Central Bureau of Investigation had registered a case against the petitioner for offences under S.409, 465 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge (CBI/SPE) Ernakulam found petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of 15 days. During the pendency of the trial petitioner was suspended from service. After the judgment of the Special Judge petitioner was dismissed from service by virtue of the provisions contained in Regulation.10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 as well as para.17.3(b) of the bipartite settlement. The order of dismissal was challenged before this Court in the Original Petition. By judgment dt. 15-3-1993 the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. That judgment is assailed in this appeal.
(3.)Heard counsel for appellant;
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.