- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order of the second respondent bearing proceedings No. CO:tny:vg:376:03 dated 28. 10. 2003 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in the services of the respondent Bank with full back-wages, continuity of service and all other monetary and other attendant benefits.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows : (i) The petitioner joined the services of the respondent bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier at Kancheepuram Branch on 24. 07. 1978 and after serving in various branches in Chennai, he was transferred to South Car Street Branch at Sankarankoil in August 1991 which Branch has since been merged with the Sankarankoil Main Branch. On 04. 05. 2000, the then Zonal Manager, Trichy and Disciplinary Authority issued a Show Cause notice to the petitioner and simultaneously placed him under suspension with immediate effect alleging certain acts of misconduct. (ii) The petitioner submitted his explanation on 03. 06. 2000 to the show cause notice, denying the two allegations contained therein. The Zonal Manager and Disciplinary Authority issued a Charge Sheet dated 13. 07. 2000, containing two charges and classifying the same under Clause 19. 5 (j) of the Bi-partite Settlement dated 19. 10. 1966, stating that the petitioner committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and ordered Departmental Enquiry on those charges. (iii) The Departmental Enquiry proceedings against the petitioner on those charges were held starting from 29. 11. 2000 and continued for a year and concluded on 05. 10. 2001 at the Sankarankoil Main Branch. On 27. 10. 2001, the Presenting Officer submitted his written arguments and on 26. 12. 2001, the Defence representative submitted his written arguments. The Enquiry Officer gave his findings on 20. 01. 2002 and the Disciplinary Authority, by his letter dated 07. 02. 2002, forwarded a copy of the findings to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his comments on the findings and the same was complied with promptly by the petitioner. Thereafter, between March 2002 and October 2003, for over 18 months nothing transpired and the petitioner continued to languish under the unwarranted suspension inflicted upon him since May 2000. (iv) Though the Disciplinary Authority received the Enquiry Officer's findings on the enquiry proceedings in January 2002, he failed to take steps to reinstate the petitioner in the services of the Bank and after 18 months, he ordered a fresh enquiry for the second time on the same set of charges contained in the charge sheet dated 13. 07. 2000. (v) In the enquiry held earlier, as many as 5 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were marked on behalf of the management and Exs. 1 to 11 were marked on the side of the petitioner. Out of 5 management witnesses, 4 are Bank Officials and only one is an outside witness. In the enquiry, none of the management witnesses complained against the conduct of the Observer in the enquiry. According to the petitioner, the action of the Disciplinary Authority in ordering second enquiry on the very same charges on which an enquiry had already been conducted and the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted 1 ? years ago, is against the principles of natural justice and there is no provision in the Bi-partite Settlement governing the service conditions of the petitioner for conducting a second enquiry on the same set of charges, on which an enquiry has already been held. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the second respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court for effective remedy, as stated above.
(3.) THE second respondent has filed counter contending that: a. during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner, by letter dated 20. 11. 2006, accepted the charges pertaining to proceedings bearing Ref. CO/tny/vg/376/03, dated 28. 10. 2003 and he is voluntarily and unconditionally prepared to accept any punishment other than Discharge/dismissal under Clause 12 (e) of the Bi-partite Settlement, dated 10. 04. 2002; b. though the Disciplinary Authority was willing to accept the admission of guilt by the petitioner in respect of the impugned proceedings and impose appropriate punishment therefore, he could not do so, since the petitioner wanted dropping of proceedings in respect of which he had committed grave misconduct, which has nothing to do with the impugned proceedings; and c. the Bank is willing to accept the letter of voluntary admission dated 20. 11. 2006, insofar as it pertains to the proceedings, which is impugned in the present writ petition and award appropriate punishment other than Discharge/dismissal as represented by the petitioner. ;