AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This order shall dispose of W.P. Nos. 8253 of 2005 and 6271 of 2006, as common question of law and facts a re involved.
For the sake of brevity, the facts a re being taken from W.P. No. 8253 of 2005.
The Petitioner in W.P. No. 8253 of 2005 prays for issuance of a Writ, in the na ture of Certiorari, to quash the order of punishment awarded to the Petitioner, for the alleged misconduct while working as Manager.
Whereas the Petitioner in W.P. No. 6271 of 2006, the Cashier, who was also charged on the similar charges along with the Manager, seeks for issuance of a Writ, in the na ture of Certiorari, to quash the order of punishment, and to direct the Respondents, to pay the salary of the Petitioner in the scale, as it was prior to the impugned order.
The admitted facts of the case, a re tha t one Noorjahan Beevi of Iruveli Village approached the bank, for loan against pledge of jewels. The jewels were assessed a t a value of Rs. 11,500/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand and Five Hundred only). As per the norms of the Bank, the Petitioners could have sanctioned a loan of Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) against security of Rs. 11,500/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand and Five Hundred only). Whereas the loan for a sum of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand only) was disbursed.
The Petitioners in both the writ petitions were charge sheeted on the allegations of mis-appropriation and tampering of records.
The Petitioners submitted explana tions to the charge sheets, which were not found to be satisfactory. Accordingly, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to look into the charges.
It is not in dispute, tha t the Enquiry Officer gave opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. On conclusion of the evidence, the Enquiry Officer did not find the charges to be fully proved. The Manager was held guilty of assisting the Cashier in misappropriation, on account of his negligence in sanctioning a loan of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand only), instead of Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only). The Petitioners, however, were found guilty of the charge of tampering with the records, to cover up the misappropriation, by changing the loan application.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, is tha t the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on No. evidence, thus, perverse, on the face of record. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out tha t the affidavit filed by Mrs. Noorjahan Beevi before the Enquiry Officer, stating therein, tha t she had received a loan of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand only), which stood paid back, which showed tha t there was No. loss to the Bank.
The Enquiry Officer did not accept the affidavit filed by Mrs. Noorjahan Beevi, for No. reasons, and as already observed above, found the Petitioner guilty of negligence, which resulted in mis-appropriation and tampering of documents.
The Petitioners were issued show cause notices, to which they replied. The competent Authority imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by three stages from the present basic pay in the incremental scale, in the case of Manager, and reduction of pay by five stages from the present basic pay in the incremental scale, in the case of Cashier.
The Petitioners preferred Sta tutory Appeals to the Appellate Authority, by challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as well as the order of punishment to be not sustainable in law.
The Appeals filed by the Petitioners were partly allowed, by reducing the punishment of lowering by two stages from the present basic pay in the incremental scale in the case of Manager, and lowering by four stages from the present basic pay in the incremental scale in the case of Cashier.
The order passed by the Appellate Authority in the case of Manager reads as under:
The Board of Directors of the bank (Appellate Authority) in its meeting held on 09.08.2003 a t Pandiyan Hotel, Madurai considered the captioned appeal and directed the bank to convey the decision of Appellate Authority to the Appellant.
Accordingly, I convey the decision of the Appellate Authority as under.
The Board condoned the delay in submission of appeal. As per records placed to the Board, there was No. loss to the bank, the Board decided to take a lenient view and reduce the punishment of lowering of three stages from the present basic pay in the incremental scale of Appellant, earlier imposed to "lowering of two stages from the present basic pay in the incremental scale.
The order passed by the Appellate Authority in the case of Cashier reads as under:
The Board of Directors of the bank (Appellate Authority) in its meeting held on 09.08.2003 a t Pandiyan Hotel, Madurai considered the captioned appeal and directed the bank to convey the decision of Appellate Authority to the Appellant.
Accordingly, I convey the decision of the Appellate Authority as under.
The Board condoned the delay in submission of appeal. It is observed tha t there was No. loss to the bank, and therefore, the Board has decided to take a lenient view and reduce the punishment of lowering of five stages from the present basic pay in the increment scale of Appellant, earlier imposed, to "reduction in the basic pay by four stages from the present basic pay in the incremental scale.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners is right in contending, tha t the impugned orders cannot be sustained, as it does not meet with the requirement of quasi judicial order.
It is well settled law, that the Authorities, while exercising quasi judicial power, a re supposed to pass a speaking order, meeting with the contentions raised by the Appellant.
The impugned orders a re non speaking orders, as the Appellate Authority has not considered the contentions raised by the Petitioners, and proceeded on the presumption, as if, the prayer made was for reduction of punishment.
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
Whereas the Petitioners had challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer and impugned orders on merits.
Consequently, both the writ petitions a re allowed, the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority a re ordered to be set aside, and cases a re remitted back to the Appellate Authority, to decide the Appeals afresh, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order, meeting with the grounds raised by the Petitioners, after giving opportunity of hea ring to the Petitioners.
The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the Appeals expeditiously, in any case, not later than three months of a date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
No costs.