K M SHARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of punishment dated 23rd January, 1988, passed by the respondent No. 1 bank against the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding held against him, is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) A departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner by the respondents by communicating the charge-sheet dated 18th June, 1986. The said charge-sheet contain certain charges on account of alleged irregularities/malpractices allegedly committed by the petitioner while working as Branch Manager, Azadpur and Jahangir Puri branches of the State Bank of India in Delhi. The charges that were drawn up against the petitioner related to indiscriminate grant of overdrafts, cash credit limits and other malpractices in violation of the laid down, instructions of the bank. The aforesaid inquiry into the charges was conducted by the respondent bank in terms of Rule 50(2)(1) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report. The inquiry officer held that the charges drawn against the petitioner are partly proved. The Chief General Manager, New Delhi who was the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner accepted the findings rendered by the inquiry officer and opined that the penalty of dismissal from service should be imposed on the petitioner. The Deputy Managing Director, who was the Appointing Authority, before whom the aforesaid records were placed agreed with the findings and passed the order imposing on the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from bank's service. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal. In the said appeal the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Managing Director is incompetent to pass the order of dismissal as he had no power to do so. Another issue that was raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was that the Deputy Managing Director invoked the provisions of paragraph 19(3) of the SBI (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 for the purpose of continuation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner after he ceased to be in service in February, 1988. It was submitted that any order under the said provision has to be passed by an authority not below the rank of Managing Director. It was also submitted that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner should be treated as closed after he ceased to be in service in February, 1988.

(3.) The Appellate Authority considered all the aforesaid pleas which were raised in the appeal. With regard to the first issue that was raised about competency of Deputy Managing Director, who passed the order of dismissal, the Appellate Authority held that in terms of the service rules, the major penalty order in this case was passed by the Deputy Managing Director who was the Appointing Authority for officers in middle management grade scale-Ill and therefore he was empowered to impose a penalty on the petitioner. With regard to the second contention, it was held that the Deputy Managing Director had invoked the provisions of paragraph 19(3} of the State Bank of India (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 on 20th January, 1988 for the purpose of continuing the disciplinary proceeding after the petitioner ceased to be in bank's service with effect from 1st February, 1988. It was also held that the aforesaid approval was given in January, 1988 when the post of Managing Director of the Bank was vacant and in the absence of the Managing Director, the Deputy Managing Director was the Competent Authority to invoke the provisions of paragraph 19(3) of the State Bank of India (DTCS) Order and in terms of the instructions in force. Both the aforesaid contentions were' accordingly rejected. On the other contentions of the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appointing Authority acted on the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission in imposing the penalty of dismissal on the petitioner without independent application of mind, the Appellate Authority held that the Disciplinary Authority has furnished cogent and relevant reasons in support of his recommendation for imposing the penalty of dismissal of the petitioner and that the Appointing Authority upon independent application of mind to all the facts and evidence on record accepted the findings/views of the Disciplinary Authority and passed the order of dismissal. It was also held that the penalty of dismissal inflicted on the petitioner was called for and was necessary in view of the fact that the petitioner committed serious irregularities in sanctioning advances and overdrafts in violation of the laid down instructions resulting in substantial financial loss to the bank and therefore the penalty imposed is commensurate with the offence. The Managing Director who was the Appellate Authority in terms of the aforesaid SBI (DTCS) Order, rejected the appeal and a review filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the reviewing authority. Consequently, the present petition is filed challenging the aforesaid orders.