IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 25097 of 1999(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K. SANKARANARAYANAN, 9.502-E, KAMPERI ROAD, COCHIN-2. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, UCO BANK, 10, B.T.M. SARANI (BRABOURNE ROAD), CALCUTTA 700 001. 2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UCO BANK, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KARITHANAM THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 25097/1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER DT. 26-4-1994. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET. EXT.P3 COMMUNICATION DT. 7-6-1994 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT. EXT.P5 COMMUNICATION DT. 20-1-1995. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 10-2-1995. EXT.P7 REPLY DT. 20-2-1995. EXT.P8 FINAL ORDER DT. 6-4-1995. EXT.P9 ORDER DT. 23-5-1995. EXT.P10 REPRESENTATION BEFORE R1. EXT.P11 ORDER DT. 8-12-1998. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 25097 of 1999 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 24th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed this original petition at a time when he was an employee of the UCO Bank, Thiruvananthapuram. On the allegation that he assaulted a fellow employee, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted Ext. P4 report finding the petitioner guilty of the charge of assaulting Sri. Viswanathan. On that basis, the petitioner was given notice to show cause why he should not be imposed with the punishment of barring of four increments. After receiving the petitioner's reply, punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner by Ext. P8 order. Petitioner's appeal was rejected by Ext. P9 order. The petitioner is challenging the charge sheet and the above orders. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner did not assault the said Sri. Viswanathan. According to the petitioner, it is the said Viswanathan who assaulted the petitioner and in an act of self- defence, the petitioner only pushed Sri. Viswanathan. He further submits that it was because of the provocative words used by Sri. Viswanathan against the petitioner over phone that the whole incident occurred and therefore the petitioner was not guilty of the misconduct alleged. 3. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 4. In Ext. P4 enquiry report, the enquiry officer stated thus: “ . . . . . The chargesheeted employee asserted that Mr. Viswanathan's telephonic conversation was provocative and it contained bad remarks against him which he could not tolerate. He stated that a quarrel followed and he had pushed Mr. Viswanathan in an evasive manner when Mr. Viswanathan tried to beat him. The witnesses on the alleged incident, since all of them stated that they had not seen it, but only heard about it.” O.P No. 25097/99 -: 2 :- The petitioner has, in Ext. P10 appeal filed by him before the appellate authority, has stated thus: “In my reply to the charge sheet, I gave in writing that I gave a blow to Viswanathan but it was with sufficient provocation. Viswanathan had provoked me with insultive language and when confronted he hit me with his hands. At this time, on my defence, I gave him a punch to his face. It w s to escape from his punches.” Before me also, while submitting that when the said Viswanathan assaulted the petitioner, the petitioner pushed him in self defence, he also submits that it was the provocative words of Viswanathan which resulted in the incident. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had, in fact, assaulted Sri. Viswanathan. Whether it is with provocation from Viswanathan or not, it is clear that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct. Whether it was consequent upon provocation of Sri. Viswanathan is only a mitigating circumstance. That cannot absolve the petitioner from the guilt of assault. In this case, for the above misconduct, the petitioner has been imposed with only a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect, which was imposed taking into account all circumstances. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/