STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. K.S. VISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed under Sec. -4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 to challenge the order dtd. 22/3/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 17480/2004. Writ Appeal No.4220/2011 is filed by the respondents while Writ Appeal No.4599/2011 is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petitioner shall henceforth be referred as 'delinquent' while the employer shall be referred as 'bank'.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of writ petition No.17480/2004 are that, the delinquent was working as Deputy Manager (Cash) at SSI Peenya II Stage Branch of the Bank at Bangalore from 14/3/1996. Due to shortage of staff, the delinquent was burdened with clerical duties which required him to collect cash from Peenya Industrial Estate Branch of the bank. It is stated that by a letter dtd. 18/9/1998, the Peenya Industrial Estate Branch reported to the local Head Office of the bank that on 6/8/1996 requesting a cash remittance of Rs.10.00 lakhs. The letter authorized a clerk named M.N. Kiran to collect the cash and his signature was attested. The author in whose name this letter dtd. 6/8/1996 was addressed, denied its authenticity on the ground that it was forged. However, the Peenya Industrial Estate Branch had released the cash of Rs.10,00,000.00 which remained unaccounted at the SSI Branch. It was mentioned in the letter 18/9/1998 that, one Sri. A.R. Balasubramanian was the AGM of the SSI Branch at the material point of time, who denied his signature found on the letter dtd. 6/8/1996. The Head Office directed Mr. M.R. Srinath, an AGM working at the Head Office to investigate the matter. The said officer recorded the statement of the delinquent on 28/9/1998 and thereafter submitted a report to the bank absolving the delinquent from the illegality alleged. Thereafter, the local Head Office submitted a complaint to the CBI on 10/11/1998, based on which the FIR was registered. The delinquent claimed that when he was in custody of CBI, self incriminating statements were secured forcibly. Based on some undisclosed report of the CBI and at its instance, Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated by an order dtd. 7/10/1999. The delinquent was placed under suspension on the ground that further investigation was pending into the alleged acts of misconduct committed by him. A charge sheet date 23/12/2000 was issued, which was replied by the delinquent. An Enquiry Officer was appointed after refusing to accept the objections filed by the delinquent and the enquiry commenced on 30/4/2001. It is stated that, though the articles of charge contained three documents, but at the enquiry 41 documents were allowed to be marked and the witnesses who were not found in the list of witnesses, were examined. Based on these irregular proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that charge No.1 was proved while charge No.2 was partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued a notice enclosing therewith a copy of the Enquiry Report, called upon the delinquent to submit his statement on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The delinquent submitted an elaborate reply. But the Disciplinary Authority ignored the reply and held the delinquent guilty of the charges and dismissed him from service in terms of the order dtd. 21/6/2003. A statutory appeal filed by the delinquent against the order of the Disciplinary Authority was summarily dismissed. Hence, the delinquent filed writ petition No.17480/2004 challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority.

(3.) The delinquent contended before the learned Single Judge that the entire enquiry lacked bona fide but violated every procedure prescribed and was in absolute violation of the principles of natural justice. He contended that the alleged incident occurred on 6/8/1996 while the enquiry was commenced on 30/4/2001 and therefore, he contended that it was highly improbable that the witnesses could have remembered the incident and narrated it with precision. He contended that the delinquent was routinely collecting cash from the office of the Peenya Industrial Estate and was bringing it to SSI Branch and it was improbable for the witnesses cited at the enquiry to remember one such remittance on a particular day that too 4 years prior to the date on which the evidence was tendered. He also contended that the officer appointed by the Bank Mr. M.R.Srinath had exonerated the delinquent of any wrong doing and that the enquiry was based on a presumptuous report of the CBI, which was not furnished to the delinquent. He also contended that all norms were flouted at the enquiry and the witnesses at the enquiry were clearly led by the Enquiry Officer. The delinquent made a pointed reference to the statement of PW.2 to the CBI and though he insisted the same to be marked, the Enquiry Officer adjourned the enquiry and thereafter ruled against the delinquent on the ground that the statements could not be marked unless the Investigating Officer was examined at the enquiry. He also contended that the voluminous documents relied upon in the enquiry were not part of the charge sheet and the delinquent had no sufficient opportunity to verify the same. He also contended that the enquiry statements of the witnesses were not furnished, which deprived him of effectively cross-examining the witnesses. He therefore, contended that the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer were fraught with illegalities and irregularities and therefore warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.