JAGDISHCHANDRA MAGANLAL TRIVEDI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza with Mr. Sunil K. Shah for the appellant and Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the oral judgment dated July 8, 1997 delivered by the learned Single Judge (Coram : S.K.Keshote,J.) in Special Civil Application NO. 4121 of 1984. Brief facts are as under: Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Initially, the respondent bank called explanation from the appellant by letter dated November 24, 1978 in respect of the alleged incident. The appellant JAGDISHCHANDRA MAGANLAL TRIVEDI had received charge sheet dated January 24, 1981 when he was working as Branch Manager in State Bank of India, Borsad Branch. Alleged incident is dated October 7, 1978. In charge sheet, following charges were levelled against the appellant :

(2.) In charge sheet, details of the charges were also given by the competent authority. The Chief General Manager was competent authority or disciplinary authority who had issued the charge sheet. Reply was submitted by the appellant on April 10, 1981. The appellant was placed under suspension with effect from April 21, 1979. Subsequent to the suspension of the appellant, CBI Investigation was carried out. According to the appellant, in report of the CBI, no prima facie case was found against the appellant, therefore, suspension order was revoked and the appellant was reinstated in service by order dated March 13, 1981. Copy of the report of the CBI was demanded by the appellant but the same was not supplied. Departmental inquiry was initiated against the appellant and the inquiry officer was appointed on April 30, 1981. The inquiry officer submitted his report on May 13, 1982. The inquiry officer come to the conclusion that the second and third charges are established to his satisfaction and the first charge had been partly proved.

(3.) The competent authority after receiving report from the inquiry officer, was in agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. The competent authority also gave reasons for his agreement. The competent authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement against the appellant with immediate effect by order dated August 2, 1982. Alongwith the order of punishment, copy of the findings of the enquiry officer was enclosed. Then, the appellant preferred departmental appeal on August 30, 1982 before the Local Board. The appellate authority Local Board decided the appeal by order dated May 7, 1983. The appellate authority modified the order of punishment from compulsory retirement to reversion to the lower cadre JMC Scale-I. Then, the appellant was reinstated in service. Having reached the age of superannuation, the appellant retired in December, 1992. Affidavit in reply was filed by the respondent bank through its Chief General Manager Shri Laxman G. Kulkarni. Thereafter, further affidavit was filed by the respondent bank through its General Manager Shri V. Christian and certain documents relating to subsequent misconduct and order of punishment were produced on record. Said affidavit of the bank was replied by the appellant on April 17, 1997.