CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed writ petition being aggrieved by the findings of inquiry committee and imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service vide letter No.VIG/1323 dated 17th September, 1986. Petitioner joined as Clerk in the erstwhile Imperial Bank of India and after establishment of the State Bank of India services of the petitioner were transferred to the respondent/SBI w.e.f. 1.7.1955. Petitioner was promoted as Grade II officer w.e.f. December, 1971. He was further promoted as Officer Grade-I w.e.f. December, 1973. In the year 1979, petitioner was promoted as Branch Manager.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the prior to the order of dismissal from service he had put more than 32 years of unblemished service. A charge sheet dated 17th September, 1985 which contains four charges was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the finding of the Inquiry Officer, order of the Disciplinary Authority dismissing petitioner and order of the Appellate Authority rejecting its appeal. It was contended before me by the Counsel for the petitioner that Appointing Authority has not been defined under the Rules approved by the Board of Directors on 25th July, 1975. The petitioner's appointment as Grade-II Officer was made by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of Directors and the dismissal order was passed by the Deputy Managing Director who is a lower authority than the Executive Committee of the Central Board of Directors and therefore, order of termination could not have been passed by Deputy Managing Director. It was contended that the charges 1(i), (ii) and (v) were deleted on 20th March, 1986 and charges (iii) and (iv) were not proved. In relation to charge (ii) it was contended that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the bank on account of Current Account of Ram Lal having been opened at Punjabi Bagh by the petitioner. The petitioner omitted to put initials in the introductory reference on the A/c opening form but no loss has been caused to the bank in this regard. In relation to charge No. (iv) it was argued that entire amount of loss in the name of Raje Singh was recovered together with interest and no loss has been caused on this count. It was contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that penalty of dismissal was an extreme penalty and ends of justice would have been met if a penalty of recovery of the loss of exchange of about Rs. 25,000/- if any, was deducted from the terminal dues of the petitioner as per Rule 49(d) of the Rules. The attention of this Court was invited to the finding of the Appellate Authority which is to the following effects: "While no doubt the Bank has not suffered any loss other than the loss of exchange, being the difference between the normal exchange and the concessionary rate granted by the Appellant, in my view, the quantum of punishment is not dependent on the loss suffered by the Bank alone."

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid finding of the Appellate Authority it was contended that in spite of the fact that no loss was caused to the bank still the extreme penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the petitioner and on that account petitioner has not been given any terminal benefits even after rendering 32 years of service. It was further contended that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order of dismissal from the service. Appellate Authority has also arbitrarily rejected the appeal of the petitioner without affording him personal hearing and without recording a specific order on the efficacy of imposing extreme penalty of dismissal.