P.N. SALUJA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has a chequered history. The petitioner while working with the respondent bank was proceeded under the Conduct Rules in terms of charge -sheet dated October 26, 1983, whereby 9 charges were framed against him. Eight charges were proved and one was partially proved, which resulted in imposition of penalty of 'removal' from service on the petitioner vide order dated June 24, 1985. The appeal filed against the order of the disciplinary authority was rejected by the Appellate Authority on November 21, 1985. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1300/1988 for the quashing of the departmental proceedings from the stage of his suspension i.e. June 13, 1983 till the dismissal of the departmental appeal seeking reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. On January 13, 2011 the writ petition was accepted to the extent that this Court finding the order of the Appellate Authority dated November 21, 1985 being an unreasoned one remanded the matter to the said authority for passing a reasoned order. The Appellate Authority on May 20, 2011 passed a fresh order observing 6 charges as proved and 3 charges as partially proved. The petitioner's appeal was once again rejected.

(2.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Review Petition No. 380/2011 in Writ Petition No. 1300/1988. The said review petition was allowed on January 27, 2012 reviving the Writ Petition No. 1300/1988. The intra court appeal filed against the said order was upheld by the Division Bench vide its order dated February 27, 2012 in LPA No. 159/2012. The Special Leave Petition No. 15672/2012 filed before the Supreme Court by the respondent was also dismissed on July 01, 2013. The Writ Petition No. 1300/1988 was heard and decided by this Court, whereby the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the penalty of removal of the petitioner from service by exonerating him of all the charges with a further direction that he would get all consequential service benefits. It was also observed that since he had attained the age of superannuation, he will not be ordered to be reinstated in service. The order dated September 10, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 1300/1988 was challenged by the respondent bank in an intra court appeal before the Division Bench in LPA 747/2012, which was partially allowed by the Division Bench vide its decision dated November 26, 2013 exonerating the petitioner of 7 charges and holding that on charges 8 & 9, the penalty of removal from service would be harsh and unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the question of penalty in accordance with the decision and the observation made in the said order. The said order of the Division Bench dated November 26, 2013 in LPA 747/2012 was challenged by the respondent before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 3346/2014. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition vide its order dated February 17, 2014. It is pursuant thereto the impugned order in this writ petition i.e. order dated June 13, 2014 has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the penalty now imposed of "reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay and bringing basic pay down to the initial stage of JMGS -1 and fixing at Rs. 700 with further directions that you will not earn increments to pay till retirement" was imposed. It may be clarified here that initially an order dated May 02, 2014 was passed by the General Manager as the appointing authority. An objection was raised by the petitioner that the General Manager is not the disciplinary authority. In view of this objection, the Chief General Manager has passed the impugned order dated June 13, 2014 as the appointing authority/disciplinary authority.

(3.) MR . Rajiv Kapur, learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated the stand taken by the respondent in the counter -affidavit inasmuch as the impugned orders cannot be said to be perverse. According to him, charges 8 & 9 were held to be proved against the petitioner. The penalty is proportionate to the charges framed and proved against the petitioner. He would also state that the petitioner has been paid consequential benefits pursuant to the initial round of litigation inasmuch as he was paid a sum of Rs. 10,50,593/ - on account of arrears of pay, Rs. 78,782/ - towards provident fund contribution; a sum of Rs. 2,21,444/ - on account of gratuity and Rs. 95,328/ - towards leave encashment and on petitioner's completing formalities required as per banking rules he would be granted pension. He would also state that the petitioner having accepted the benefits, which became payable pursuant to the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated June 13, 2014, he cannot challenge the order now. He would rely upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: -