MANIBHAI J PATEL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred with the following prayers:

(2.) In 1986 the Petitioner was transferred from Limbdi Branch of the Bank to Halvad Branch, both falling within Surendranagar District. It appears that the bank undertook investigation through one Shri A.R. Thaker and by an order dated October 29, 1990 the Petitioner was put under suspension, pending departmental inquiry. On July 24, 1991 the Petitioner was charge-sheeted on the footing that while working as RDO at Halvad Branch the Petitioner had committed three acts detailed therein which amounted to grave misconduct. The Petitioner was called upon to state as to why, if the stated charges or any one of them, stand proved, the Petitioner should not be visited with punishment specified in Regulation No. 67 of the State Bank of Saurashtra (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (the Regulations). The Petitioner furnished statement of defense on August 29, 1991. Thereafter regular inquiry was conducted by the department through one Shri N.N. Sheth, who was appointed as an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer tendered his report dated August 3, 1993, which came to be served on the Petitioner under cover of letter dated September 1, 1993. The Petitioner therefore, preferred an appeal on October 9, 1993 before the appellate authority, as required by Regulation No. 70 of the Regulations. The appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated June 28, 1994, which came to be forwarded to the Petitioner under cover of letter dated July 9, 1994. It is the orders made by the inquiry officer and the appellate authority which are under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner is that the acts, which are alleged to be acts of misconduct by the Petitioner, cannot be termed to be so because at the highest, the said acts can be termed to be mere errors or clerical errors, considering the fact that at the relevant point of time the Petitioner was the only officer at Halvad Branch, looking after Development of Rural Finance. That there was no Field Officer at Halvad Branch and there was overall shortage of staff at the said branch requiring the Petitioner to discharge duties of other staff members. The Petitioner thus, being overburdened, might have committed errors but the said errors were bona fide errors and the mistakes had been committed during furtherance of the work of the bank. That the Petitioner had not gained anything in the said exercise nor had the bank been put to any pecuniary loss so as to visit the Petitioner with a major penalty of compulsory retirement.