Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: using abusive language in Selvin Abraham vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 22 May, 2025Matching Fragments
9. Ext.P13 order of dismissal from service is based on Ext.P11 enquiry report. Though Ext.P11 enquiry report did not enter into a finding that the charge that is raised against the petitioner "....while on duty on 27.07.1993, misbehaved with the Branch Manager, Sri.A.K.Ohri, he manhandled the Branch Manager, Sri. A.K. Ohri used abusive language. He failed to maintain proper discipline in the office and his behaviour was unbecoming an officer of the Bank." This act of the petitioner is an act of misconduct and attracts sections under Clause 3(1) and (2) of the Conduct Regulations, 1981 to be read along 2025:KER:34952 11 "C.R."
2025:KER:34952 20 "C.R."
21. It is further contended that the charge framed itself is not sustainable, going by Ext.P8 memo of charges which states as follows :
"Mr.Selvin Abraham, Officer u/s. B.O. Coimbatore while on duty on 27.07.93 misbehaved with the Branch Manager, Sri.A.K.Ohri. He manhandled the Branch Manager Sri.A.K. Ohri and used abusive language. He failed to maintain proper discipline in the office and his behaviour was unbecoming of an officer of the bank.
Branch Manager should have ascertained his exact leave record from B/O Cochin ................... for salary deduction. Further, PO and could not give proper justification for dropping MW Mr. Vasudevan, ................ declaring Mr. Karuppasamy a hostile, as he has given written statement in the fart finding stating that MW4 shouted and pushed Abraham, CSO also could not prove the presence of DW Sh.Sitaraman and Mr.Seshadri in Branch Manager's cabin. During their cross examination by CSO, both the witnesses have stated that Branch Manager has shouted and manhandled the CSO. If the was so, why they have not mentioned in the written memorandum (Management exhibit) signed by all workman staff including them submitted to Zonal Office. The memorandum submitted to Branch Manager on 28/7/93 also did not mention their presence in Manager's Cabin and manhandling incident by Branch Manager. As such it can be presumed that these two witnesses did not enter the Branch Manager Cabin and are not stating the truth. It is further proved that Branch Manager cabin was fully curtained and nobody could see from outside. CSO also not rebutted this claim of management. It is also proved that MW1 Ravinder Singh was in Branch Manager's cabin throughout the incident, the same has not been rebutted by CSO. It is also observed that MW1 Ravinder Singh has stated that Selvin entered Branch Manager's cabin in angry mood and used abusive language while giving written statement to fact finding officer. But during examination Chief/cross examination he has stated that Selvin entered in furious mood and used these words" मादर चौदहुआ को मार दी ". These Hindi words are normally used in North and it is 2025:KER:34952 34 "C.R."
expected to be used by person of South origin. So it can be presumed that CSO has used abusive language but not the words as mentioned in Charge Sheet.
Similarly MW4 during examination has stated that Selvin set for a moment and without provocation he pounced on the Branch Manager whereas a letter addressed to Zonal Manager, Branch Manager stated hat he pounced upon salary register and office note without using the word that he sat for a moment in his cabin. Keeping in view of the proceedings/exhibits it is proved that CSO entered the Branch Manager's cabin in furious mood as he was having a lot of pressure of his salary deductions & due to Branch Manager's prejudice attitude. There might be some heated exchange between Branch Manager & CSO & CSO might have taken the salary register forcibly from the Branch Manager which may have resulted in push and fall of Branch Manager spectacles. Thus Management charge of manhandling is proved." (emphasis supplied)