STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. RAJEEVKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is at the instance of the appellant State Bank of Patiala against the decision of the learned Single Judge by which the appeal against the departmental inquiry and subsequent proceedings against the respondent Rajeev Kumar ( the delinquent for short) has been allowed and the impugned order dated 6.8.1987 imposing penalty of dismissal against the delinquent confirmed in the appeal and revision has been quashed and set aside. The delinquent has been further held entitled to be continued in service till the age of superannuation with all consequential benefits. It has been, however, ordered that the salary and other allowances for the period during which the delinquent remained out of job, he shall be entitled to only 50% of such monetary benefits (back wages) from the date of the order of dismissal from service till the date of superannuation. The appellant bank was directed to pay arrears and consequential benefits to the delinquent within a period of three months.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the delinquent joined as Probationary Officer in State Bank of Patiala at Kanpur Branch on 24.11.1979 and confirmed on 24.11.1981 and in November 1984, the delinquent was transferred to Ahmedabad as Branch Manager. It is stated that Shah-E-Alam Roza branch of the appellant bank was started in November 1984 and the delinquent took over the charge as Branch Manager of this branch from 10.12.1984. As the premises of this branch had insufficient space, the proposals were invited by the Branch Manager, Ashram Road Branch, Ahmedabad to acquire spacious building for the bank. The applications received by the said branch were forwarded to the Regional Manager at Delhi. The Managing Director and the Zonal Manager, Delhi came to Ahmedabad on 12.2.1985 and they were accompanied by one Mr.S.K.Sharma working in the office of the Deputy Director of Intelligence, Income Tax Department, Indraprashtha Estate, New Delhi. The team from Delhi inspected two buildings which were offered by Mr.S.K.Sharma. One of the offers was in the name of the wife of Mr.Sharma and other was in the name of her brother Mr.S.B.Sharma. The delinquent had occasion to report about one offer received in the name of M/s Navyug Corporation which was owned by one Mr.K.M.Trivedi. The delinquent was not associated with the inspection of two buildings offered by Mr.S.K.Sharma. After approval of the proposal of Mr.Sharma, the letter dated 16.4.1985 came to be communicated to the delinquent on 20.4.1985. After communication of the letter, the building came to be purchased by Mr.Sharma under the deed dated 30.4.1985. Mr.S.B.Sharma the relative of Mr.S.K.Sharma came to the branch on 20.4.1985. As the building sort listed by the officials was not fit for taking over possession and some disputes regarding this building were going on, the delinquent informed the higher officials regarding the same. In return, the delinquent was pressurized by the higher officials from Delhi as well as Mr.Sharma to take the building on rent as well as to extend the loan of Rs.1 lac on the said building. In the month of May, 1985, the delinquent approached the CBI authority at Ahmedabad and narrated his case which has arisen out of undue favour to Mr.S.B.Sharma by the higher up in the bank. In pursuance of the report made to the CBI, the delinquent received official letter dated 24.6.1985 from the CBI requesting him to hand over the concerned files available in the branch office in respect of hire of new premises at 36, Bhavna Society, Ahmedabad and it was further stated that in case the original files were not available, xerox copies of the documents be supplied. When this matter was going on, a raid by Anti Corruption Bureau was conducted at the delinquent and he was taken into custody by the police. He was taken to the police station from where he managed to give telephonic call to the CBI officials and ultimately, he was allowed to go home without registration of any criminal case. In pursuance of this development, the delinquent was placed under suspension vide communication dated 13.9.1985 on the allegation that the regular case has been registered against the delinquent under section 161 of Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The said order purported to have been passed under Regulation 69(1)(b) of the State Bank of Patiyala (Officers) Services Regulations, 1979. The order of suspension was not in contemplation of any disciplinary inquiry, but it was on the basis of the criminal case registered against the delinquent. It is further case of the delinquent that the criminal charges were dropped without presentation of any chalan.

(3.) The delinquent received communication dated 10.5.1986, containing articles of charges and imputations of misconduct against him. The disciplinary authority decided to hold inquiry and one Mr.K.P.Gupta was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Mr.Surinder Gupta was appointed as bank s Presenting Officer. The delinquent requested for some documents and copy of the regulations, but there was no response from the authority. It is stated that the Inquiry Officer and the bank s Presenting Officer both were appointed by the disciplinary authority at the instance of and in collusion with the Managing Director and other officials stationed at Delhi in connivance with the complainant Mr.Sharma. It is further his case that the inquiry has been conducted in violation of various provisions of the bank and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The delinquent also raised objection regarding appointment of the Inquiry Officer with a bias, however, the same was declined. The day prior to the day of inquiry at Ahmedabad, the delinquent was supplied with the railway ticket without reservation and in waiting list. As a result of which, he could not attend the inquiry proceedings nor his request to adjourn the inquiry proceedings was considered. The inquiry proceedings were conducted ex parte and adverse findings were recorded against the delinquent. It is further his case that copies of the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer were not supplied to him and out of 10 witnesses relied upon by the Inquiry Officer, no examination in chief of 7 witnesses was recorded. The star witness of the appellant i.e. a three-wheeler driver did not support their case. It is submitted that the entire inquiry was vitiated because none of the witness was examined in chief before the Inquiry Officer, but only the police papers were put on record and the said statements were taken as evidence by the Inquiry Officer. It is further case of the delinquent that under Regulation 68(3)(iii) of the appellant bank, if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that the penalty proposed is major penalty and if the disciplinary authority is lower in rank to the appointing authority, it shall submit the entire record of the inquiry to the appointing authority together with the recommendations regarding penalty proposed to be imposed and then, it is for the appointing authority to make an order of imposing such penalty as it consider appropriate. However, in the case of the delinquent, the report of the inquiry authority was submitted to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority has submitted the report with recommendations to the Managing Director appointing authority. The appointing authority, therefore, was required to give hearing to the delinquent. However, without giving any opportunity of being heard, the order dated 6.8.1987 imposing punishment of dismissal was passed. The delinquent also agitated non-supply of copies of the inquiry report and recommendations of the disciplinary authority and as such, the order was against the principles of natural justice.