R S GUPTA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as General Manager (Commercial & International Banking) at Calcutta received a letter from the Vigilance Department of the Local Head Office of the respondent Bank at Delhi seeking certain clarifications with respect to certain alleged irregularities in the sanction of advance to M/s. Tayal Group of Companies during the incumbency of the petitioner as Deputy General Manager and General Manager (Operations) at Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner furnished his reply to the aforesaid queries. However, by order dated 18.2.1994, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the respondent-Bank with immediate effect. In the said order placing the petitioner under suspension it was stated that investigation carried out into the irregularities committed in the sanction, conduct and follow-up of advances relating to M/s. Tayal Group revealed that the said alleged irregularities could be attributable to the petitioner and if so proved are serious in nature and, therefore, pending completion of the investigation by the CBI and until further orders it had been decided to place the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect in terms of Rule 68 A(1) of the SBI Officers Service Rules. In the said order it was also indicated that the petitioner has a right to prefer an appeal against the said order in terms of Rule 69 of SBI Officers Rules.

(3.) On 18.4.1994, the petitioner preferred an appeal with the Central Board which is the appellate authority of the respondent-Bank in terms of Rule 69 of the Service rules praying for revocation of the suspension order dated 18.2.1994. The appellate authority, however, by order dated 27.4.1995 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner preferred this writ petition seeking for quashing of the order of suspension on the ground that the continuous suspension of the petitioner for an unduly long indefinite period without issue of any charge sheet or any action on the part of the CBI is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. It may be incidentally mentioned that at the time when the writ petition was filed no disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner in respect of alleged irregularities in respect of advances to M/s. Tayal Group although the petitioner was put under suspension on 18.2.1994. However, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the respondents served a charge sheet on the petitioner on the said dealings under memo dated 5.1.1998 enclosing therewith the statement of articles of charge and also a statement of imputations of misconduct in respect of articles of charges.