GIRISH CHANDRA TRIVEDI Vs. BASTAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank (for short 'the Bank') is a (sic)venture of the Central Government and State Government and affiliated by the State Bank of India. The petitioner was employed by the respondent-Bank as Branch Manager on 22.06.1981 and posted at Sambalpur Branch. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Sonarpal Branch in the same official capacity in Tahsil and District - Jagdalpur (Baster). It is alleged that during his tenure as Branch Manager at Branch Sambhalpur as well as at Sonarpal, the petitioner has committed several grave irregularities and misused his official capacity, so as to cause loss to the respondent-Bank.

(2.) THE petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 21.09.1985 (Annexure A) relating to his posting at Sambhalpur Branch with regard to the irregularities committed by him, which are as under :-

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, total 10 charges were levelled against the petitioner. One Shri Gajanan Prasad Pandey was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri Meghraj Pathak was appointed as Presenting Officer. The enquiry was concluded on 19.10.1986 and the report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 06.12.1987 to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 23.12.1987 proposed the punishment on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 18.03.1988. After considering the reply of the petitioner and having afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed the final order dated 12.05.1988 (Annexure F) imposing the punishment of dismissal from Banks service as at the close of Business on 12.05.88 without notice which shall be a disqualification for future employment. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted statutory appeal under Section 32 of the Bank Regulations against the order dated 12.05.1988 passed by the disciplinary authority, to the Board of Directors of the Bank. Vide communication dated 21.09.1989 it was informed to the petitioner that the Board of Directors had discussed the points involved in the appeal, in detail in its meeting dated 20.09.1989 and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.