M.RAJAGOPAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both the petitions arise out of the same set of facts, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioner in WP No.15463/14 was the Chief Manager and the petitioner in WP No.16246/14 was the Deputy Manager of the respondent Bank at the relevant point of time. For certain delinquencies in the discharge of their official duties relating to approval of loan, in all 19 charges were framed against the petitioners for which the petitioners were subjected to enquiry after obtaining explanation from them.

(3.) The petitioner in WP No.15463/14 was due to retire on superannuation on 31.10.11, but in view of the pending charge memo, invoking Rule 19 (3) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules (for short 'SBIOSR'), the petitioner was not permitted to retire from service. Enquiry commenced only after the retirement of the petitioner, by making the petitioner as deemed to be in service for the purpose of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. After conduct of the enquiry against both the petitioners, the enquiry officer filed the report holding that some of the charges framed against the petitioners stood proved, while some were partly proved and the others were not proved. Based on the enquiry report, further explanation was called for from the petitioners and on receipt of the same, being not satisfied, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner in W.P. No.15463/14, while the petitioner in W.P. No.16246/14 was inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Against the said orders of punishment, the petitioners preferred appeal before the appellate authority, who confirmed the orders of punishment. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present petitions have been preferred. Contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. No.15463/14 :