JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)Degala Surya-narayana, the respondent has been in the employment of the Bank of India, the appellant. In the year 1981 he was working in Middle Management Grade II and was due for promotion. On 16-4-1981 the appellant made a complaint against the respondent to the CBI alleging certain misappropriations. While the complaint was under investigation the respondent was interviewed for promotion in the year 1981-82. The result of the interview was withheld on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings against him. In 1983, two criminal cases were filed by the CBI implicating the respondent before a Special Court at Visakhapatnam. In the year 1987, he was again considered for promotion. However, he was informed that though he was found fit for promotion with effect from 1-1-1986, the finding of the promotion committee was not being given effect to on account of the pendency of the criminal cases. The criminal cases ended on 17-8-1988 favourably to the respondent acquitting him of the offences charged. However, the order of promotion was not issued.
(2.)In the year 1990, CWP No. 17490/90 was filed by the respondent seeking relief of the order of promotion being issued and given effect to. By an interim order dated 3-4-1991, the High Court directed the respondent to be promoted on ad hoc basis with effect from 1-1-1986. There was a writ appeal where in the Division Bench confirmed the interim order of the learned single Judge but at the same time went on to add an observation in its order that the employer was at liberty to enquire into the matter departmentally though ad hoc promotion as ordered by the single Judge had to be given.
(3.)On 3-12-1991 a charge-sheet was given to the respondent alleging commission of misconduct by him. The statement of allegations accompanying the charge-sheet referred to certain incidents of the years 1973 to 1978. The respondent filed CWP No. 12577/92 mainly contending that the domestic enquiry related to stale matters and therefore the charge-sheet dated 3-12-1991 was liable to be quashed. The writ petition was however dismissed consequent whereupon the enquiry proceeded ahead. On 11-10-1994 the Enquiry Officer submitted a report recording a finding that none of the charges levelled against the respondent was proved. The Disciplinary Authority however disagreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer on one of the charges namely charge 1(b) and called upon the respondent to show cause why he be not punished. By order dated 4-3-1995 the Disciplinary Authority reversed the finding of the Enquiry Officer on charge 1(b) and held the respondent guilty of misconduct and imposed upon him the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage which is a major punishment.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.