The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 communication, that was issued to him by the 2nd respondent Bank, whereby the petitioner was denied copies of the documents that he sought for, in Ext.P2 representation filed by him, so as to formulate an effective reply to the charge-memos issued to him. In Ext.P3, the 2nd respondent Bank informed the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against him would go on on the stipulated date, time and venue and that in his absence the proceedings would go on ex parte.
2. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and reply affidavits to the said counter affidavits have also been filed by the petitioner in the instant case. The counter affidavits and the reply affidavits deal with the merits of the allegations raised against the petitioner in Ext.P1 and P1(a) charge-memos issued to him. In these proceedings, I do not intend to go into the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner through the charge memos referred to above. The case of the petitioner is that he has not been furnished with the documents that are necessary for him to prefer an effective reply to the charge-memos issued to him. In these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I intend to examine only the contention of the petitioner that, in denying him copies of the documents relied upon in the charge memo's issued to him, the petitioner has been prejudicially affected in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
3. I have heard Sri.Shanthilingam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that in Ext.P2 letter, issued by the petitioner to the respondents, he has sought for various documents from the respondents, although the said representation is not very specific as regards the documents he has not received and those that he requires for the purpose of preparing an effective reply to the memo of charges issued to him. In that view of the matter, I feel that if the petitioner, through a proper representation to the respondents, gives details of the documents, that are required by him for the purposes of preparing his reply to the charge-memo issued to him, by correlating them with the reference to the said documents in the charge-memos issued to him, then the 1st and 2nd respondents shall take immediate steps to furnish the petitioner with copies of the said documents or, if copies cannot be given of the said documents on account of the nature of the documents, afford him an opportunity of perusing the documents at the premises of the 1st and 2nd respondents. The petitioner shall file his representation showing the details of the documents required by him within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st and 2nd respondents shall thereupon furnish the copies of the relevant documents to the petitioner, or afford him an opportunity to peruse the documents, as the case may be, within a period of two weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall then submit his reply to the charge-memos issued to him, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/date of perusal of the documents. The disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the petitioner shall proceed thereafter, and the 1st and 2nd respondents shall endeavour to complete the proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the reply of the petitioner to the memorandum of charges. While completing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the 1st and 2nd respondents shall take note of the objections of the petitioner with regard to the very initiation of the proceedings against him based on material that was allegedly the subject matter of earlier proceedings against him. The orders to be passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents shall reflect a consideration of this aspect as well.
With these directions, this writ petition is disposed.
SD/-
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JV JUDGE