P M KHODE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in respondent Bank in October 1967. He was promoted to the post of Head Clerk and later promoted to the post of Officer Grade-ll and after vationalisation of posts and pay scales in 1979, he was place in the post of Officer, Junior Management Grade Scale-l. While posted as Officer, Junior Management Grade at Hospet Branch, Hospet, he was served with a charge sheet dated 21st January 1983, containing charges of misconduct as Clerk at Sambra Branch of respondent Bank. It was alleged in the said charge sheet that petitioner did not remit a sum of Rs.800/- handed over to him by Wg.Cdr. Beddoe on 27.2.1978 for credit into his account and on 13.3.1978 had made fictitious credit entries in the Pass Book and ledger sheet as on 27.2.1978, by interlineations and had obtained the initials of the Branch Manager by falsely confirming that the petitioner had verified the relative Voucher. This was first charge sheet. Petitioner, while working at Dooravaninagar Branch, Bangalore and just before the commencement of inquiry precedings on the basis of first charge sheet, petitioner was served with yet another charge sheet dated 1.1.1985, containing three charges. In the charge memo, it was alleged that:

(2.) To enquire in to the charges framed in the first charge sheet, disciplinary authority, appointed A.J.M. Anthraper as Inquiry Officer. While enquiry was in progress, one Mr. J.M.D' Souza was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations made in the second charge sheet dated 1.1.1985 by an order dated 25.3.1985.

(3.) In the pleadings filed -before the Court, it is not very dear, whether the charge sheeted officer had filed any reply to any of the charge memos served on him by the disciplinary authority. The inquiry officer held his first sitting to enquire in to allegations made in the first charge memo on 29.1.1985 and after preliminaries, the proceedings were adjourned to 19.2.1985. On the adjourned date, before the commencement of enquiry proceedings, the delinquent official filed a letter dated 19.2.1985, interalia stating that the articles of charge against him, pertains to the period when he was working as Award staff and as such governed by Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, applicable to Award staff and he cannot be proceeded under the Conduct Rules applicable to supervisory staff. In support of his plea, petitioner also produced a copy of the Judgment of High Court of Judicature, MADRAS, in the case of M.W. PAVITHRAN v. CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY, 1988 I LLJ 26. To consider the objections raised, the proceedings were adjourned by the enquiry officer, with information that further communication in the matter will be informed in due course. Proceedings once again commenced on 17.5.1985 and on that day defence representative was supplied with all the copies of exhibits sought for by him in his earlier representation and such of those exhibits which could not be supplied, he was permitted to inspect the same. Significantly netiher the charge sheeted officer nor his representative sought for any reply for their letter dated 19.2.1985 from the enquiry officer, but participated in the enquiry proceedings by cross examining all the management witnesses and also entering into the witness box to load their defence. On this aspect, petitioner has not made any grievance even before the Appellant Authority in his elaborate and lengthy Memorandum of Appeal. I have a purpose in referring to these aspects, which I will advert to it a little later. The enquiry was completed on 17.5.1985 and the enquiry officer submitted his report, his findings thereon together with the records of the enquiry proceedings and other documents on the first charge sheet dated 21.1.1983, to the disciplinary authority on 10.6.1985. Proceedings of the enquiry officer in so far as charge alleged in the second charge memo was also completed by the inquiry officer within the time set by disciplinary authority. The report and the findings thereon was also had been placed before the disciplinary authority for further action in the matter. The findings of the enquiry office on the charges alleged in the charge memo dated 21.1.1983 is as under: