- (1.) THIS is a petition by a former employee of the respondent - Corporation Bank. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of dismissal dated 26th June, 1986 which is at page 169 of the petition. The said order has been passed after holding a regular departmental enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Corporation Bank Officers-Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 (for short the 1982 Regulations ). The said order dated 26th June, 1986 has been confirmed in appeal after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The appeal has been dismissed on 14th January, 1987 and the order is at page 148. A few facts leading to the controversy that is sought to be raised in the petition are as under:
(2.) THE petitioner joined the respondent Bank in July, 1947 as an apprentice. He rose from the ranks and in April, 1961 he was posted at Kalbadevi Branch as a Branch Manager. One firm M/s. Bhavarlal Milapchand, a constituent of Kalbadevi Branch of the respondent-Bank, had several dealings with the respondent-Bank. It had an open cash credit limit of Rs. 3,00,000/ -. Lorry receipt discounting facility was also upto the limit of Rs. 3,00,000/ -. Facility for dis-counting of cheques was to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and bills of exchange facility was to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000. It appears that in respect of certain stale lorry receipts which had already been encashed, on 6th and 7th November, 1984, the petitioner purchased 21 demand documentary bills in his capacity as a Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank. The aggregate value of the 21 receipts was Rs. 1,48,734/ -. It is alleged that the purchase of the lorry receipts were made on 29th December, 1984 without any authority and solely with a view to afford undue pecuniary accommodation to M/s. Bhavarlal Milapchand. The 21 Demand Documentary bills accompanied by 40 stale lorry receipts issued by Bombay Andhra Transport Co. between the period 3rd October, 1984 and 8th October, 1984 were purchased by the petitioner and the amount was credited to some other account of M/s. Bhavarlal Milapchand. It was alleged that the goods covered under the stale lorry receipts were already delivered to a third party, the drawer of the receipts, under indemnity bonds on 6th November, 1984 and 7th November, 1984. Thus the Bank was put to a loss of Rs. 1,48,734/- since no amount could be reimbursed by the Madras Branch when the receipts were sent from Bombay to Madras. Even before the petitioner purchased the said receipts on 29th December, 1984 the goods covered under the said stale receipts were already delivered to the third party on 6th and 7th November, 1984. It was alleged that all these transactions were entered into by the petitioner unauthorisedly and the petitioner was guilty in not acting with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and that he had acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer and had thereby committed a mis-conduct violating Regulation 3 (1) of the relevant regulations.
(3.) ON 15th March, 1985 the petitioner was informed that he was relieved after office hours and should proceed to Mangalore where the Bank had its head office for discussion with the General Manager. On 16th March, 1985 he was given an air-ticket for flight to Mangalore. Accordingly, the petitioner reached Mangalore on 16th March 1985. He was suspended on 16th March, 1985 itself as per Regulation 12 (1) (viii) of the said 1982 Regulations. On 18th March, 1985 while at Mangalore, the petitioner addressed a letter which is at page 42 of the petition to the Deputy General Manager. He mentioned therein the various limits sanctioned to the firm of M/s Bhavarlal Milapchand with whom the Bank had various dealings. He also mentioned therein that the liability of the lorry receipts was increased by Rs. 9,00,000/- under various accounts. He categorically mentioned that total liability of M/s. Bhavarlal Milapchand and also its concerns was around Rs. 28,86,000/ -. He confessed in the last para of the letter that he regretted having exceeded his limits in allowing the party to increase the liability to the present position and that he should be pardoned for his error of judgment.;