ANTONY ZACHARIAS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, petitioner in O.P.No.9745 of 1989-I, while working as an officer of the State Bank of India had been proceeded against by way of disciplinary action culminating in his dismissal by Ext. P16 dated 24-09-1988. He had filed an appeal (Ext. P17) before the second respondent Deputy Managing Director (Appellate Authority). Vide communication (Ext. P18) dated 10-08-1989, he had been forwarded a copy of the order of the Appellate Authority. The appellant/ petitioner had been informed that the appellate authority did not propose to interfere with the dismissal order. The Original Petition had been filed challenging Exts.P16 and P18 orders and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) A learned single Judge, who heard the matter, had refused to interfere with the order. According to him, the petitioner had not exercised the control and discipline as was expected of an officer who deals with money belonging to the Bank. It had also been held that the punishment could not be described as disproportionate. The writ appeal had been filed in the above said circumstance.

(3.) Sri.K. Balakrishnan, counsel appearing for the appellant, led us through the voluminous paper book. The submissions made by him are as follows: