VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

670 DECISION - 327
contemplated by Cl. (2) need not be held where a person is dismissed
or removed or reduced in rank ‘on the ground of conduct which has
led to his conviction on a criminal charge’, the provision in the Banking
Regulation Act speaks of discontinuance of the employment of a
person who has been ‘convicted by a criminal court of an offence
involving moral turpitude’. There is a clear distinction between
dismissing an official for the conduct which led to his conviction, and
dismissing an official for his conviction as such. The Constitution
does not create a disqualification like the one created by Sec. 10 (1)
(b) (i) of the Banking Regulation Act. The Constitution merely enables
the State to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank an employee without
holding an enquiry, having regard to the conduct which has led to his
conviction on a criminal charge, whereas the Banking Regulation
Act disqualifies the employee from continuing in service the moment
he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
(327)
(A) Presenting Officer — not mandatory
Appointment of Presenting Officer, not mandatory.
(B) Inquiry Officer — powers and functions
(C) Witnesses — examination of
No illegality or impropriety in the Inquiry Officer
examining witnesses or questioning the delinquent.
H. Rajendra Pai vs. Chairman, Canara Bank,
1990 (1) SLR KER 127
The petitioner, Manager in the Kallakkal Branch of the Canara
Bank, was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry and was
removed from service, and the Board of Directors rejected his appeal.
It was contended by the petitioner before the High Court that
no presenting officer was appointed and the Inquiry Officer himself
acted as the presenting officer and examined witnesses and crossexamined
the delinquent and that therefore the entire proceedings