RAJEEVKUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the entire inquiry proceedings as being violative of the principles of natural justice, an order of dismissal dated 6th August, 1987 passed by the Managing Director and the order of the Executive Committee, appellate authority dismissing the appeal and confirming the said order of dismissal on 10th August, 1988 and the order passed by the Board of Directors dated 19th August, 1989 dismissing the review application preferred by the petitioner and also sought the direction to the respondent bank to reinstate the petitioner with effect from the date of his suspension to his original post with all salary and allowances payable to the petitioner as if the petitioner continued in service all throughout with all increments and promotions and allowances admissible to the petitioner for the respective post and other benefits. The petitioner has also made separate prayer for declaring that the order of suspension passed on 13.9.1985 had come to an end inasmuch as the investigation by the police in the criminal offence mentioned in the order of suspension came to end without submitting the charge sheet soon after 18th October, 1985 and for consequential relief to direct the respondent bank to pay the petitioner all pay, salary and allowances admissible to the petitioner from 13.9.1985 to 6.8.1987 as if the petitioner was in continuous service during that period on the basis that there was no suspension order.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as probationary officer in the State Bank of Patiala of the respondent. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent bank at Kanpur Branch on24th November, 1979 and he came to be confirmed on 24th November, 1981 and in February, 1982, he came to be transferred as Officer at Bombay and in November, 1984, the petitioner was transferred to Ahmedabad as Branch Manager. It is averred in the petition that Shah Alam Roza Branch of the respondent bank was started in November, 1984 and the petitioner took over as Branch Manager of the said Branch with effect from 10th December, 1984. Shah Alam Roza Branch was in small premises and it was decided by the authorities to have larger premises. For that purpose, an advertisement was published for suitable premises for the said branch in the month of August and November, 1984. Proposals were invited and were received by the Branch Manager, Ashram Road Branch, Ahmedabad and the applications were to be forwarded to the Regional Manager at Delhi. As further averred in the petition, the then Managing Director and the Zonal Manager, Delhi came to Ahmedabad on 12.2.1985 and they were accompanied by one Shri SK Sharma, working in the office of the Deputy Director of Intelligence, Income Tax Department, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi and they inspected two buildings, which were offered by said Shri SK Sharma who accompanied them from Delhi. The offers for these two buildings were made by said Mr. Sharma on 12.2.1985. One of the offers was in the name of the wife of Mr. Sharma and the other one was in the name of her brother Shri SB Sharma. The petitioner had an occasion to report about one offer received in the name of M/s. Navyug Corporation which was owned by one Mr. KM Trivedi. The petitioner was not associated with the inspection of the two buildings offered by Shri SK Sharma of Delhi and he was kept in dark about the said activities. After the approval of the proposal of Shri SB Sharma as per letter dated 16.4.1985 which came to be communicated to the petitioner on 20.4.1985, said building came to be purchased by said Shri SB Sharma under a Deed dated 30th April, 1985. Shri SB Sharma came to the branch on 20.4.1985 and made endorsement on the duplicate of the letter dated 16.4.1985 received by him about accepting the terms and conditions laid down by the Bank. As averred in the petition, the building was not fit for taking over the possession but Mr. Sharma was insisting for loan from the bank and the petitioner was being instructed on telephone to advance the loan by Zonal and Regional Managers. The petitioner was pressurized by the higher ups to agree to Mr. SB Sharma on telephone. However, since the petitioner was not agreeing, the petitioner was being threatened by Shri Sharma and, therefore, in the month of May, 1985, the petitioner had approached the CBI Authority at Ahmedabad and narrated his plight which had arisen out of undue favour to Shri SB Sharma by the higher ups in the bank. The petitioner replied to his superiors when he was asked telephonically to advance loan that he should be so directed in writing and by letter dated 7.6.1985. The Regional Manager directed the petitioner as Branch Manager to release interim loan of Rs.1,00,000.00 to Shri SB Sharma under equitable mortgage after obtaining requisite certificates of clear title. As averred in the petition, in the mean time, by letter dated 24.6.1985, CBI Requested the Branch to hand over the concerned files available in the branch office in respect of the hire of new premises at 36, Bhavna Society at Ahmedabad and it was also stated that in case the original files were not available, zerox copy of the documents be supplied to it. When the matter was going on, the Regional Manager, Delhi by letter dated 17.7.1985 wrote to Shri SB Sharma that the bank was unable to take any decision in the matter of letting out of the premises to the bank until the final decision of the Court. In view of this letter, taking over possession and release of interim loan was put in abeyance till the matter was decided by the Court. Copies of letters dated 7.6.1985, letter dated 24.6.1985 as well as letter dated 17.7.1985 are annexed by the petitioner as Annexure A,B and C respectively. As averred in the petition, on 24.7.1985, Shri SB Sharma came to the Branch during recess when this petitioner was going to restaurant and he accompanied the petitioner to the Trupti Restaurant. He tried to offer money at the restaurant but this petitioner refused. The petitioner was to go back in auto rickshaw when Shri Sharma sought a lift upto Bhavna Society but on the way, the petitioner told Shri Sharma that he had some work at Jawahar Chowk, thereupon, Shri Sharma got down and the auto rickshaw was taken towards Jawahar Chowk but that auto rickshaw broke down and hence the petitioner was walking down towards nearby branch of State Bank of Hyderabad when a jeep came nearby and some persons jumped out and caught and asked the petitioner to get into the jeep. The petitioner shouted for help and large crowd gathered and those persons in the jeep stated that they were from Anti Corruption Bureau. The petitioner was then taken to the nearest police station and finally they took him to Maninagar Police Station and was abused and made to sign the papers and was detained till 8.00 p.m. Under the pretext of contacting relative, the petitioner contacted on telephone the Superintendent CBI at Ahmedabad and he in term talked with the ACB Persons who, thereupon, did not arrest the petitioner and dropped him in their jeep at his residence. As averred in the petition, on the next day, the petitioner wrote to the Superintendent narrating the incident and apprehended about the conspiracy hatched against the petitioner and made request before him to make detailed inquiry in the matter.

(3.) As further stated in the petition, the ACB Persons seized the file containing correspondence relating to Bhavna Society Premises. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide communication dated 13.9.1985 on the allegation that the regular case has been registered against the petitioner under sec. 161 of the IP Code and sec. 5(2) read with sec. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Said order is purported to have been passed under Regulation 69(1)(b) of the State Bank of Patiala (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 petitioner. However, criminal charges were dropped.