SHAMBHU PRASAD JUYAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was removed from the services vide order dated 31st May, 2012, passed by the Regional Manager (R-1), Disciplinary Authority, respondent No.3. Statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2012. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cashier in the State Bank of India on 07.02.1985; ultimately, petitioner was promoted to the post of Special Assistant in the year 2008; petitioner alongwith his wife Smt. Rajni Juyal purchased plot No. 510 in T.H.D.C. Colony, Rishikesh in the year 2006; thereafter petitioner took housing loan of Rs.10 lacs from Canara Bank alongwith his wife and constructed residential house over the plot purchased by him; petitioner and his wife entered into an agreement to sell with Ranjit Singh Rawat for the sale consideration of Rs.18 lacs somewhere in March, 2008 and then agreement to sell was executed on 11.08.2008; Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat, the prospective purchaser of the petitioner's house, applied for housing loan; S.B.I. sanctioned housing loan in favour of Ranjit Singh Rawat to purchase house from the petitioner; since property in question was mortgaged with the Canara Bank, therefore, housing loan outstanding against the petitioner was paid to the Canara Bank by Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat through S.B.I. As per the petitioner, since Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat could not arrange entire money within the time stipulated in the agreement to sell, therefore, Shri Ranjit Singh Rawat requested to the petitioner to cancel the agreement to sell and ultimately agreement to sell was mutually cancelled.

(2.) A show cause notice, annexure No.7 to the writ petition, was issued to the petitioner calling the explanation of the petitioner on two charges. Charges levelled against the petitioner are being reproduced hereunder:-

(3.) Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice issued. Ultimately, petitioner was held guilty for both the charges levelled against him and he was removed from the Bank services vide order impugned in the writ petition.