RE: Legal Opinion regarding Bank 1’s next course of action in connection with allegations lodged against Mr. x, Deputy Managing Director of Bank 1 by Bank 2.
We refer to your letter no. BANK 1/HO/HRD/2007/529 (III) dated 28 January 2007 on the above subject.
From perusal of your letter and other submitted documents, it is appears that Mr. x joined Bank 1 (“BANK 1”) as a regular employee on October 14, 2003 as Senior Vice President and subsequently was re-designated as Deputy Managing Direct of BANK 1.
Mr. x as availing leave with effect from 26.12.06 to 24.01.07 (30 days) to perform Holy Hajj. He came back from his leave and joined the Bank on 24.01.07 and applied for 18 days leave with effect form 25.01.07 to 11.02.07 due to physical weakness; the leave was duly approved by the management of BANK 1.
In the Meantime it has been observed from the newspaper on 26.01.07 that cases have been filed against some former and incumbent officials of Oriental Bank Limited who were reportedly involved in siphoning off money from Oriental Bank Ltd. The Newspapers have published the name of Mr. x as one of the persons who have been implicated in the matter. BANK 1 has asked Mr. x to clarify his position regarding the allegations raised against him in the different dailies. Mr. x by his letter dated 27 January 2007 has provided BANK 1 his explanations.
Bank’s Service Rules do not provide any specific guidelines as to what the bank should do in such a situation and what impact the incident has on the continuity of service of the incumbent.
In these circumstances, you seek our legal opinion as to what course of action the Bank should take against Mr. x in order to safeguard the interests of the Bank.
We have perused the Trust Bank Ltd. Service Rules. As Mr. x is a Deputy Managing Director of BANK 1, he falls under the definition of Executives under Clause 3 (a) of the Service rules and as such is governed by the Service Rules.
Any disciplinary action against Mr. x has to comply with the Service Rules. Clause 19.1 of the Service rules contains the grounds for taking disciplinary action against an employee of BANK 1. We have scrutinised Chapter IV of the rules which dea with disciplinary actions. None of the grounds contained in Clause 19.1 are applicable to Mr. Chowdhury. Since there can be no proposal for any disciplinary action, there cannot be any suspension as well. Moreover, taking into consideration the explanations given by Mr. x by his letter dated 27 January 2007, we are of the opinion that BANK 1 need not take any disciplinary actions against Mr. x at present.
If you have any further query, please do not hesitate to contact us.
For: “The Lawyers & Jurists”