The Hindu Business Line : HC questions bank for conducting ‘fresh’ enquiry against employee

Chennai, Sept. 12 The Madras High Court has set aside the dismissal of an employee of a nationalised bank as the bank had illegally conducted a ‘fresh’ enquiry on the charge-sheet filed against the said employee.

The bank had not only examined additional witnesses during the ‘fresh’ enquiry, but also re-examined all the four original witnesses, which was not permissible in law, the court ruled.

The bank could not take undue advantage of an earlier order issued by the Division Bench of this court and hold a ‘fresh’ enquiry, Mr Justice K. Chandru held while setting aside the order of dismissal dated January 22, 1997 of the respondent bank — Central Bank of India.

The Division Bench, the judge noted, in its judgment only considered the statement given by the bank, and on that premise, it came to the conclusion that what was going to be done was only a ‘further’ enquiry and not a ‘fresh’ enquiry. It had become clear that in the guise of conducting a ‘further’ enquiry, the bank had gone ahead with the ‘fresh’ enquiry contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the judge said.

The petitioner was working as a daftary in the bank’s Mogappair branch. He was charge-sheeted by a charge-memo dated October 4, 1991. An enquiry was conducted against him. The enquiry officer had opined that the charge against him had not been proved.

writ petition

Instead of taking a decision on the said report, the disciplinary authority of the bank ordered for ‘further’ enquiry on the same charge-sheet. A writ petition by the employee challenging initiation of fresh proceedings was dismissed by the High Court. The Division Bench, which heard a writ appeal, held that what was ordered was not a fresh enquiry but only a further enquiry.

Taking advantage of the Division Bench’s order, the Enquiry Officer collected fresh evidence, and he found the petitioner guilty.

Mr Justice Chandru said that the bank’s Enquiry Officer had re-examined all the original 4 witnesses, which was against law. They could not take undue advantage of the earlier Division Bench’s order. Hence, the impugned order was set aside. The order of dismissal of the petitioner would stand set aside.

More Stories on : Human Resources | Courts/Legal Issues | Tamil Nadu

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
RBI Annual Report 2007-08: Take the road less travelled

Rupee weakens further

IT stocks turn bearish, pull Sensex down to 14,000

IIRM to expand training services

Sahara India Investment exits NBFC business

HC questions bank for conducting ‘fresh’ enquiry against employee

Bond prices fall

Edelweiss to foray into asset reconstruction biz

Banks asked to lend to no frills a/c holders

Call rate ends lower

SBH deposit mobilisation drive

Banks tapping CDs to meet credit demand