S.Natarajan … vs The Chairman And Managing ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 18283 Mad

                                                                                   W.P.No.9630 of 2008

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 07.09.2021

                                                     CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

                                              W.P.No.9630 of 2008

                 S.Natarajan                                               … Petitioner
                                                    Vs
                 1.The Chairman and Managing Director,
                   Canara Bank Head Office,
                   Bangalore.

                 2.The General Manager/Appellate Authority,
                   Personnel Wing, Canara Bank Head Office,
                   Bangalore.

                 3.The Deputy General Manager,
                   Disciplinary Action Cell,
                   Canara Bank Circle Office,
                   Chennai.                                                 … Respondents

                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                 praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to
                 the orders in (1) No.NIL dt 28.6.2003 of the 2nd respondent (communicated in
                 Pro.Ref.No.CNC.DAC.663/E.37 dt 8.7.2003 of the 3rd respondent) and (2)
                 Pro.No.CNC.DAC.751/E.37 dt 31.5.2001 of the 3rd respondent               quash the
                 same and issue consequential directions to the respondents to reinstate the
                 petitioner in service with consequential benefits of back pay, continuity of
                 service.

                 1/8

http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                                    W.P.No.9630 of 2008




                                For Petitioner     : Mr.Balakrishnan

                                For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Raman, Senior Counsel
                                                  for Mr.C.Seethapathy

                                                     ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging an order of termination dated

31.05.2001 passed by the 3rd respondent and order of confirmation of the

aforesaid by the 2nd respondent/Appellate Authority dated 08.07.2003. At the

outset, this writ petition is hit by laches insofar as, it has been filed after a

period of five years from date of appellate order.

2.The defence of the petitioner is that an appeal has been filed

challenging the order of the appellate authority dated 08.06.2003 before the

first respondent i.e. Chairman and Managing Director/R1 on 15.09.2003.

However and admittedly, the Regulations of the Canara Bank (Bank) do not

provide for an appeal as against the order of the first appellate authority.

3. That apart, there is no acknowledgment for filing of the second appeal

on 15.09.2003, as stated by the petitioner nor acknowledgment for the

subsequent reminders (one per year) dated 02.09.2004, 15.08.2005,

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.9630 of 2008

02.09.2006, 09.09.2007, finally culminating in the present writ petition being

filed in April 2008.

4. It appears very clear to me that the present writ petition is an after

thought and both the so-called second appeal as well as subsequent annual

reminders have been systematically designed to explaining the inconvenient

delay of five years. This writ petition is liable to be rejected in limine in the

ground but there are other reasons as well that persuade me to do so, are

enunciated below.

5.The petitioner entered service as a Clerk in the Bank on 07.04.1980

and was promoted through the ranks. While serving as an Officer in the

Mudalaipatti Branch, he was suspended for certain acts of misconduct by

proceedings dated 24.01.1997. A charge memo was framed under Regulation 6

of Canara Bank Officer-Employees (D.&A.) Regulations, 1976 read with

Canara Bank Officer-Employees (D.&A.) Amendment Regulations, 1988,

reading as follows:

“You were working as an Officer at our Mudalaipatti Branch from 3.6.1996 and you were kept under suspension with effect from 25.1.1997.

While so working at our Mudalaipatti Branch, you were incharge of Deposit Section, Internal Control, etc. An SB A/c No.5376 in the name of Sr.P.Shekar was opened on 12.7.1996 and several transactions were put through for huge sums. An investigation conducted in the matter revealed that the credits in the account were in total violation of systems and

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.9630 of 2008

procedures in opening the SB A/c and putting through transactions in the newly opened SB A/c. You are responsible for the violation of systems and procedures and your aforesaid acts have put the Bank to a huge loss of over Rs.3,34 Crores.”

6.One of the arguments advanced by the petitioner is that the delay

between the order of suspension and framing of charge and subsequent order of

R3 dismissing him from service would show significant elapse of time between

1997 to 2001 and that this delay has prejudiced him greatly, also vitiating the

proceedings in question.

7.The explanation put forth by the learned counsel for the Bank is that

the transactions in issue, were the subject matter of investigation/enquiry by the

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under R.C.5 (A) of 1997 for which a

charge sheet had been framed bearing No.NK/1/1999. Thus, the domestic

enquiry was awaiting the completion of CBI enquiry and formulation of

charges. It is for this reason that the order of dismissal was passed only in

2001, notwithstanding that the charge sheet has been framed as early as in

November 1999. I find the explanation plausible.

8. That apart, I do not see that there is undue delay perse in the

proceedings. The sequence that presents itself to me is that, on 24.09.1997 the

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.9630 of 2008

petitioner was suspended, on 25.11.1999 a charge sheet was issued and

explanation called for, on 27.12.1999, an explanation was submitted by the

petitioner, on 12.01.2000, the enquiry as well as presenting officer were

appointed, on 01.02.2000, notice for enquiry was issued, the petitioner

submitted a written brief on 10.02.2001, report of the enquiry officer is dated

12.03.2001 and on 31.05.2001, the petitioner was dismissed from service. I fail

to anything untoward in the timelines as aforesaid. This argument is rejected.

9.I advert to the facts briefly as I am conscious of the fact that I am

concerned more with the decision making process than the decision itself. The

charges framed as against the petitioner relate to a transaction of the year 1996.

On 12.07.1996, the petitioner is stated to have permitted one P.Shekar to open

an account with the bank. The petitioner had allowed the credit of proceeds on

the basis of an Inter Bank Advise (IBA) issued by the Bangalore Branch of the

Bank. Post credits, the account stood with a balance in excess of Rs.70 lakhs.

10.Fifty (50) cheques were permitted to be presented and cleared

thereafter from the said bank account. The schedule to the charge sheet

contains the details of the payees and it is relevant to note that the petitioner

was himself the beneficiary in the case of five withdrawals being cheque

Nos.879481 (Rs.25,000/- dated 22.07.1996), 879486 (Rs.5,00,000/- dated

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.9630 of 2008

13.08.1996), 879672 (Rs.9,00,000/- dated 19.08.1996), 879674 (Rs.8,00,000/-

dated 20.08.1996) and 879678 (Rs.9,00,000/- dated 23.08.1996). To reiterate,

the aforesaid facts are only mentioned solely for completion of narration.

11.On the basis of the charge sheet, the explanation tendered by the

petitioner and in the enquiry that was held, the charges were held proved by the

officer and punishment of dismissal from service imposed on 31.05.2001. The

petitioner has thereafter filed an appeal reiterating his submissions before the

appellate authority, upon consideration of which the order of dismissal stood

confirmed.

12.Parallely, criminal proceedings have come to be concluded by order

dated 31.07.2015 passed by the II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases,

Coimbatore) in C.C.No.9 of 1999. At paragraph-30 of the aforesaid judgment,

the Special Court concludes that the prosecution has proved its case against the

first, second and third accused, the petitioner being arrayed as first accused,

beyond all reasonable doubt and that the petitioner was found guilty of various

offences under the provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment and fine. An

Appeal is said to have been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid

order, which is pending.

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.9630 of 2008

13.In light of the discussion as above, I see no merit in this writ petition

and the same stands dismissed. No costs.

07.09.2021 Index : Yes Speaking Order vs

To

1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Canara Bank Head Office, Bangalore.

2.The General Manager/Appellate Authority, Personnel Wing, Canara Bank Head Office, Bangalore.

3.The Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Action Cell, Canara Bank Circle Office, Chennai.

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.9630 of 2008

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

vs

W.P.No.9630 of 2008

07.09.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in