STATE BANK OF INDORE Vs. GOVINDRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Govindrao was an agent of Ujjain Branch of the State Bank of Indore. On 18/3/1977 a charge-sheet was served upon him in which it was alleged that loans were granted from his Branch of the Bank in total disregard of the rules regulating grant of such loans which had become irrecoverable and thereby had caused loss to the Bank. Govindrao was supplied with copies of all the documents demanded by him and waspermitted to inspect records, vouchers, etc, but he did not file any reply to the allegations made against him. The Enquiry Officer found Govindrao guilty of negligence in the matter of granting of the loans and made his a report after waiting for the reply from Govindrao for a considerable period of time. Thereupon the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice to Govindrao calling upon him to show cause why he should not. be dismissed. On 28/9/1977 Govindrao informed the Disciplinary Authority that the Development Officer, Shri Sharda, was primarily responsible for granting of the irrecoverable loans. Govindrao had acted only in supervisory capacity,

(2.) On 3/10/1977 the Disciplinary Authority, after taking into consideration the objection filed by Govindrao, passed an order dismissing him from service. On 2/6/1978 the Bank paid Govindrao full Provident Fund which was forwarded along with a letter of the same date. On 5/6/1978 Govindrao accepted the Provident Fund amount subject to certain objections and claim of interest. On 18/7/1978, an appeal preferred by Govindrao against the order of dismissal, was dismissed by the appellate authority. Nearly four years thereafter, another appeal (described as special appeal) was filed by Govindrao which was again dismissed.

(3.) Nothing happened thereafter for nearly five years. On 6/4/1987 Govindrao decided to move a writ petition challenging the validity of the order of dismissal passed on 3/10/1977. The writ petition came to be heard by a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court. By a judgment and order dated 21/6/1990, V. D. Gyani and A. G. Qureshi, JJ. quashed the order of dismissal. V. D. Gyani, J. , speaking for the bench, held that the writ petitioner must be deemed to have retired on his due date of retirement i. e. 9/10/1977. The Bank was directed to pay all the dues. Provident Fund, pension, gratuity to the writ petitioner within three months from the date of the judgment.