LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-153

P N SALUJA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

Decided On January 13, 2011
P.N.SALUJA Appellant
V/S
STATE BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged his removal from the services of State Bank of India while he was working as an Officer (Junior Management Grade Scale-I). He was ordered to be removed from service by his Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 24th June, 1985 after he had been found guilty in a departmental enquiry of having committed various acts of misconduct. THE order of the Disciplinary Authority when challenged by the petitioner was confirmed by the Appellate Authority (Local Board) vide order dated 21st November, 1985. THEn the present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE relevant facts may briefly be noticed before proceeding further to consider the grounds of challenge taken by the petitioner in this petition. THE petitioner had joined the respondent Bank in the year 1967 as a clerk on probation for six months. He was confirmed on the successful completion of probation period. Initially he was posted at one of the branches of the bank in Varanasi and thereafter in the year 1970 he was transferred to Kanpur and from there he was brought to Delhi in the year 1971. He came to be promoted as Officer Grade-II in October, 1977. THE petitioner was transferred to Gurgaon sometime in 1980 and after sometime to Palwal and finally sometime in 1983 he was transferred to Faridabad where he was suspended in June,1983.

(3.) THE petitioner then approached this Court and in the writ petition the petitioner had prayed for quashing the entire departmental proceedings from the stage of his suspension and till the dismissal of his departmental appeal and for his re-instatement in service with all consequential benefits.. However, at the time of the hearing this Court was informed that the petitioner had already crossed the age of retirement. THE petitioner had filed this petition through an advocate but at the time of hearing he presented and argued his case in person while the respondent bank was represented by its counsel Shri Rajiv Kapur.