P.K. Shamsuddin, J.
1. In this Original Petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exls.P4. P5 and P7, to declare that the entire enquiry against him is in violation of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and the principles of natural justice, and therefore void, and to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to immediately reinstate him in service with the all benefits due to him.
2. The petitioner was working as the Manager in the Kallekkad Branch of the Canara Bank. He was issued with a charge-sheet Ext. P1 alleging certain misconduct against him. It was alleged in Ext.P1 that while working as Manager of Kallekkad Branch, the petitioner granted several loans indiscriminately beyond his sanctioning powers and in total disregard to the accepted banking norms and practice and that he allowed part of the loan proceeds to be credited to loan accounts of other panics for closing overdue loans and for reducing the liability, and he also allowed pan amount of loan proceeds to be credited to his own account. The statement of imputations appended to Ext.P1 gives the details of the irregularities committed by the petitioner. Among other charges, it was also alleged that the petitioner was granting loans on the recommendation of M/s. Kannappan, V.P. Govindan, A. Sivaraman and Roman and the said practice enabled one of them to receive illegal gratifications from the borrowers concerned and that the petitioner granted several loans to the members of the Pirayiri Dairy, of which Mr. Kannappan was the Managing Partner and the wife of the petitioner was one of the partners. It is also alleged in Ext. P1 that the petitioner foiled to inform the competent authority at the appropriate time about the petitioner's wife's interest in the above said partnership firm and the petitioner failed to perform his duties with honesty, devotion and diligence and thereby contravened Regulations 3(1) and 5(3) read with Regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, a misconduct actionable under the provisions of the Canara Bank officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.
3. On denial of the petitioner the allegations contained in the charge- sheet, the Bank appointed Sri. S.N.K. Nair, Divisional Manager, Canara Bank, Divisional Office, Trivandrum, the 3rd respondent herein, as the Enquiry Officer. It is the petitioner's case that no Presenting Officer was appointed and instead, the Enquiry Officer himself examined the petitioner who is the delinquent and put various questions in the form of cross-examination virtually eliciting from him answers which were later on relied in the enquiry report to find the petitioner guilty. Ext. P2 is the proceedings relating to the examination of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent. After the said enquiry, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 statement of defence,. The 3rd respondent submitted an enquiry report finding that the petitioner was guilty in respect of some charges while holding him innocent of other charges. Ext.P4 is the copy of the report. Based on the enquiry report, the 2nd respondent imposed on the petitioner a punishment of removal from service, as per Ext.P5. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal before the Board of Directors, Canara Bank. The Board of Directors considered his appeal and rejected the same as per Ext.P7.
4. The petitioner, in this Original Petition, challenges the correctness of Ext.P4 report, Ext.P5 order based on Ext.P4 report and Ext.P7, the order on the appeal field by the petitioner, against Ext.P5 order.
5. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry conducted is in gross violation of the provisions contained in the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Act 5/70) the Board of Directors of Canara Bank, in consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, framed the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, (herein after referred to as 'the Regulations' for short).
6. Rule 6(6) of the Regulations deals with the procedure prescribed for penalty. Rule 6(6) provides that, 'where the Disciplinary Authority itself enquires or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry, it may, by an order, appoint a public servant to be known as the Presenting Officer' to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge'. Removal from service is a major punishment and the contention of the learned Counsel is that no Presenting Officer was appointed in the instant case and therefore there is clear violation of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the said Regulations. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Enquiry Officer himself acted as the Presenting Officer and cross-examined the delinquent in the instant case and that therefore, the entire proceedings are void and illegal. According to the learned Councel, the appointment of the Presenting Officer is a mandatory provision and non- compliance with the said provision will vitiate the entire proceedings. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the expression used in the Regulation is 'may' and therefore the said provision is only discretionary provision enabling the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a Presenting Officer. The expression 'may' may not in all circumstances, be indicative of a discretion, but having regard to the scheme of the Regulation and the provisions, I do not find sufficient justification to hold that the appointment of the presenting officer is a mandatory provision, the non-compliance of which will render the enquiry invalid. Further in the present case, at no stage the petitioner objected to the examination of witnesses by the Enquiry Officer nor did he insist that a Presenting Officer should be appointed. It is also not shown that the delinquent officer was prejudiced in any way as a result of failure to appoint a Presenting Officer or that the Enquiry Officer exposed a biased state of mind in putting question to the witnesses.
7. In the case of Workmen in Buckingham and Carnatic Mills, Madras v. Buckingham and Carnatic Mills Ltd., Madras (1970-I-LLJ-26), the Supreme Court held that the fact, that in the enquiry, the management was not represented by the Enquiry Officer separately and that the questions to the worker and the witnesses were put by the Enquiry Officer did not vitiate the enquiry.
8. In Bharat Electronic Ltd. v. Kasi (1987-II-LLJ-203), the Karnataka High Court held that there is no legal compulsion that the Presenting Officer should be appointed and that the mere fact that the Presenting Officer was not appointed was no ground to set-aside the enquiry.
9. For the above reasons, I hold that the enquiry is not vitiated by reason of failure to appoint a Presenting Officer.
10. The learned Counsel next contended that Ext.P2 proceedings of the Enquiry Officer held on 14th January, 1984 would show that the enquiry officer put many questions which were in the nature of cross-examination. The learned Counsel for the respondents countered this argument by inviting my attention to Regulation 17 of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. It is laid down in Regulation 17 that the inquiring authority may, after the officer-employee closes his evidence, and shall, if the officer-employee has not got himself examined, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Officer-employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. This would indicate that in a case where the Officer-employee has given evidence, there is a discretion and if the officer-employee has not himself examined there is an obligation on the Enquiry Officer to generally question the delinquent on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Officer-employee to explain any circumstances appearing against him. In other words, in a case where the officer-employee has not got himself examined, it is mandatory on the part of the enquiry officer to question the delinquent regarding the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstances appearing against him. A reading of Ext. P2 would show that the enquiry officer questioned him only on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any particular question put by the inquiring Authority to the witness which would be regarded as objectionable and indicative of based state of mind of the Enquiry Officer.
11. In Munchandani v. Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1975-1-LLJ-391), the Supreme Court held that the Enquiry Officer is entitled to put question to the witness for clarification where ever it becomes necessary and so long as the delinquent employee is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses the Enquiry proceedings cannot be impleaded as unfair. In my view no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the Enquiry Officer in questioning the delinquent and the examination was intended only to give him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him, and in doing so, the Enquiry Officer had only complied with the requirement of Regulation 17. In the circumstances there is no substance in the contention that the petitioner was prejudiced by the questioning of the Enquiry Officer.
12. Lastly the petitioner contended that there are no materials to find the delinquent guilty of any charges and that in any event, the extreme penalty of removal from service does not comemsurate with gravity of offence and it is excessively harsh and vindictive.
13. The learned Counsel cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors. (1988-I-LLJ-256). In that case, the charge against the delinquent was disobedience of the order of the superior officer to eat food and the sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment and thereafter dismissal from service with added disqualification being declared unfit for future civil employment was held to be disproportionately excessive and in this view of the matter, the Supreme Court quashed the same. In that case, the Supreme Court observed (p 262):
'Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the 'decision-making process'. The question of the choice and the quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court-martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review.'
14. I am unable to find how the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case, the charges framed are vary serious unlike the charge in the case referred to above, where the officer concerned was charge-sheeted for disobedience of order of the superior to eat food. In the instant case, Sri. V. Sivanarayanan, Senior Manager, Divisional Officer, Palghat appeared as Defence Representative along with the petitioner and another 8 witnesses on behalf of the management were examined. After enquiry, the officer found that charges Nos.2.5 to 13, 15-16 and 21 were proved. Out of the 21 instances mentioned in Articles of Charge-I, the enquiry officer found the explanation of the employee in regard to six items acceptable, but in the case of the remaining 15 items, the officer was found guilty of the charges levelled against him under Article I. The Enquiry Officer also found that the petitioner is guilty of the charges mentioned in Articles of Charge- II. It is not the function of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to re-appreciate the evidence and examine whether the appreciation of evidence made by the enquiry officer is correct or not. On going through the reports, I find that the enquiry officer has given reasons for his conclusions and the reasons so state, cannot stated to be perverse or no reason at all so as to hold that there is no material for holding that the petitioner is not guilty of the charges which were found by the enquiry officer to have been proved. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner had granted loans on the recommendations of M/s. Kannappan, V.P. Govindan, A. Sivaraman and Raman and the said practice enabled one of them to receive illegal gratifications from the borrowers concerned. He also found that the petitioner granted several loans to the members of the Pirayiri Dairy, of which, Mr. Kannappan was the Managing Partner and the wife of the petitioner was one of the Partners and that he failed to inform the competent authority at the appropriate time about his wife's interest in the above said partnership firm. Other irregularities and illegalities in the matter of granting loans have been high-lighted by the enquiry officer in his report. In the circumstances, I am unable to hold that there is no material to support the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer that he was guilty of most of the charges levelled against him.
15. Though the petitioner has raised a contention as Ground-D that the General Manager who issued the order is not a competent authority to remove the petitioner from service and therefore Ext.P5 order is void, at the time of argument, the learned Counsel has not pressed the same.
16. There is no merit in the Original Petition, it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.