STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SAMARENDRA KISHORE ENDOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the State Bank of India against the decision of the Gauhati High court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as a cashier in the appellant bank in the year 1968. He was promoted to Officer Grade-11 and then to Grade-1. While he was working at Phek Branch in Nagaland, he was promoted to the rank of Branch Manager and was transferred to Amarpur Branch in the State of Tripura in January 1981. The appellant joined at Amarpur and claimed certain amount by way of reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him in shifting his belongings and other articles to Amarpur from Phek. An inquiry was made into the correctness of the receipts and other documents produced by him in that connection (and into some other alleged irregularities committed by him) and he was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry on five charges. The charges read as follows:

(3.) An Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority (the Chief General Manager) who held, after due inquiry that all the five charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority perused the entire material and agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on charges 1, 2, 3 and 5 but did not agree with the finding on charge 4. He imposed the penalty of removal upon the respondent. An appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Board whereupon the respondent approached the High court by way of a writ petition. The High court allowed the writ petition on three grounds, namely (1 non-supply of Inquiry Officer's report before imposing the penalty vitiates the order of punishment, (2 the appellate order is not a speaking order and is therefore not in conformity with Rule 51 (2 of the S. B. I. (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules and (3 the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority on charges 1 to 3 and 5 are based on no evidence and must therefore be characterised as perverse.