STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. D C AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can Disciplinary Authority while imposing punishment, major or minor, act on material which is neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent is the only issue, of substance, which arises for consideration in this appeal, filed by the State Bank of India against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

(2.) Even though more than ten years have elapsed since the respondent was charge sheeted the proceedings have not achieved finality as yet. Partial responsibility for the delay was of the respondent, as well, who on every minor issue rushed to the courts including this Court. At one stage the inquiry had been closed ex parte against him. But it was directed to be re-opened by this Court in 1984 with direction to continue it from the stage it was closed and permission to the bank to produce material including examination of witnesses subject to cross-examination. The Court further directed the Central Vigilance Commission to appoint another Inquiry Officer. In pursuance of this direction an IAS officer of the Tamil Nadu cadre was appointed. Out of the thirteen charges framed against the respondent the Inquiry Officer found charges I(1) and II(1) only to have been proved. Remaining were found not to have been proved. Consequently the Inquiry Officer recommended for exonerating the respondent as the charges found to be proved were minor and of procedural nature. Instead of acting on this recommendation the Bank appears to have directed the Inquiry Officer to submit the report through the CVC. Under what provision this was done is not clear. In fact at one stage the learned Additional Solicitor General stated that the Bank itself was aggrieved by this conduct of the Inquiry Officer in sending its recommendation to CVC. But it appears he was not properly instructed as the finding, recorded by the High Court that the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the CVC on the direction of the Bank in contravention of the order passed by this Court remained uncontroverted. From rule 52 of the State Bank of India (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules part of Chapter VI dealing with Discipline and Appeal does appear that the Bank is empowered, 'to consult the Central Vigilance Commission, wherever necessary, in respect of all disciplinary cases having vigilance angle'. The fact of the matter is that the CVC examined the inquiry report and recorded its own findings on each of the charges and sent its recommendations running into nearly fifty pages to the Bank. The CVC not only disagreed with the Inquiry Officer and found charges I, II, III, IV, VIII, XI to XIII to have been proved, but it advised, 'imposition of a major penalty not less than removal from service'.

(3.) Both the Inquiry Report and recommendations of the CVC were sent to the Disciplinary Authority who passed an elaborate order recording finding against the respondent, and coincidently, agreeing on each charge on which CVC had found against him but disagreeing on quantum of punishment. It was observed,