STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. R. SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition though listed for hearing on IA for vacating stay, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this order.

(2.) PETITIONER is said to be constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, carrying on activity of banking and non -banking services. Respondent, it is said, was appointed in the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 2.6.1980 at its J.C. Road Branch, Bangalore and thereafter transferred to St. Marks Road Branch, Bangalore. On 18.4.1991 respondent was served with a charge sheet alleging certain acts of misconduct in the discharge of duties as a Teller at Bangalore Branch, on 8.2.1991 when he accepted Rs. 2,000/ - tendered by the representative of one Sri Kumaran Vasudevan to be credited to his S.B. A/c No. 169/172016 and issued a counter foil of the paying slip to the remitter by affixing a seal thereon. That amount, it is alleged,, was not accounted for in the Teller Receipt Scroll on 8.2.1991 and the credit voucher not released on the very same day, however, on receipt of a complaint from the Account Holder on 11.2.1991, respondent released the voucher dated 8.2.1991 bearing a receipt stamp dated 11.2.1991 and accounted for it in the Teller Cash Receipt Scroll on 11.2.1991. In addition, it was alleged that on 11.2.1991 respondent withdrew Rs. 3,000/ - each from the SB Accounts of one Sri K.C. Muthanna and another Smt. Kamala Rao and utilized part of the amount to account for the receipt of Rs. 2,000/ -. The further allegation was that respondent misutilized leave fare concession facility to the extent of Rs. 2,700/ -. Following the issue of charge sheet, respondent submitted an explanation denying the charges where afterwards disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer who conducted an enquiry, submitted a report and thereafter the disciplinary authority extended an opportunity by issuing a second show cause notice, to which a reply was tendered, where afterwards by order dated 16.3.1999 imposed the punishment of discharge from service.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the Tribunal was not justified in recording a finding that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper on the premise that the customers/complainants were not examined, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India v. Tarun Kumar Banerjee : AIR 2000 SC 3028 observing that a customer of the Bank need not be involved in a domestic enquiry, as such a course would not be conducive to proper Banker -customer relationship and therefore, would not be in the interest of the Bank.