Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the first respondent failed to exercise his power under Section 41(2) of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act and without appreciating the evidence placed before him to come to conclusion, proceeded to consider whether the evidence was available before the Enquiry Officer. The first respondent failed to appreciate the report of the Inspecting http://www.judis.nic.in Officer of the Bank dated 20.01.2004. The stocks of OCC were kept in trust by the customer. When the stock depleted, the petitioner immediately informed the higher officials and took possession of the Godown where the stocks of OCC facility was kept. After 20.01.2004 inspection, the customer sold the goods but did not remit the amount to the Bank. The customer has committed breach of trust and petitioner cannot be held negligence of discharging his duty. It is not the case of the Bank as if the petitioner colluded with the customer. The petitioner was discharging his duties diligently and was promoted as Scale III Officer. The first respondent found the petitioner guilty of not following the procedure, but there is no Rule that loan should not be paid in cash. The petitioner was regularly inspecting the Godown of the customer and when the available stock was not sufficient to cover the loan amount, the petitioner immediately took possession of the Godown of the customer where OCC stocks were kept. The first respondent having exonerated the petitioner of all the charges in first charge memo and his first charge of second charge memo, ought to have exonerated the petitioner with regard to second charge relating to very same party and ought to have set aside the order of the dismissal.

6(b).As far as second charge is concerned, opening balance produced and the sale and stock and opening balance were not correct. Sri Ramana Kumar Rice Industries (P) Ltd., has given excess valuation to the extent of Rs.60 Lakhs and Bank has lost Rs.60 Lakhs. The petitioner has not regularly visited the godown. If he had done the inspection regularly, the Bank would not have lost Rs.60 Lakhs. The respondents have proved all the charges before the Enquiry Officer. The first respondent without properly appreciating the evidence let in before the Enquiry Officer, erroneously held that the charges in the first charge memo and first charge in the second charge memo were not proved. The said finding is erroneous. The first respondent has upheld the order of dismissal based on the second charge in second charge memo proved and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by giving valid reason.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 contended that there is no provision in the Regulations of the Bank to issue second Show Cause Notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has not proved as to how he was affected by non-issuance of second Show Cause Notice.

8.The respondents 2 to 4 have not filed any appeal challenging the order of the first respondent, holding that the charges in the first charge memo and first charge in second charge memo were not proved. Even without filing any appeal, the respondents 2 to 4 can prove that finding of the first respondent in this aspect is wrong. The petitioner is entitled to make the said submissions as per Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 relied on the following judgments:

13.Issue No.2:

The respondents 2 to 4 issued two charge memos to the petitioner. In the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that charges leveled against the petitioner in both the charge memos were proved. Based on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent by the order dated 05.04.2007, dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed appeal to the third respondent and the same was rejected by the order dated 26.10.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent under Shops and Establishment Act. The first respondent exonerated the petitioner on all the charges in first charge memo and first charge in second charge memo. Based on the second charge in the second charge memo, the first respondent dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent and confirmed by the third respondent. Against the order of first respondent, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition.