M THANGAPANDIAN Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (B & O) STATE BANK OF INDIA; CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA; CHIEF MANAGER/INQUIRY OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 12.03.2014 on the file of the Inquiry Authority appointed for the purpose of conducting disciplinary proceedings against him and the notice dated 1.04.2014, calling upon him to attend the enquiry on 16.04.2014 along with his Defence Representative, as stipulated under the State Bank of India Officer's Service Rules.

(2.) The petitioner joined the service of State Bank of India as a Clerk cum Cashier. Later, he was promoted as Deputy Manager and Assistant Manager. While he was working as Deputy Manager (Cash) in the Cadre of Officer in Tirunelveli, he was placed under suspension with effect from 05.03.2013 by the first respondent. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued by the first respondent dated 13.01.2014 containing six charges. Since the explanation was not satisfactory, the first respondent appointed the third respondent as the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner engaged the services of one Mr.K.Dass, who was working as Manager, SMECC, Ekkathuangal Branch (Officer Cadre) as Defence Representative. The petitioner along with Mr.K.Dass, an officer of the State Bank of India conducted the proceedings. After the retirement of Mr.K.Dass, the petitioner engaged Thiru.K.Rajendran, who is working as Senior Assistant/Award Staff to function as Defence Representative. The Inquiry Officer permitted Thiru.K.Rajendran to conduct the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) Whileso, the Inquiry Authority issued the impugned proceedings in DIS/CON/VOC/2014-15/1, dated 12th March 2014, informing the petitioner that Thiru.K.Rajendran is not an Officer and as such, he is not eligible for appointment as Defence Representative. The third respondent in the very same order made it clear that without knowing the true position, he permitted Mr.K.Rajendran to function as Defence Representative and as such, all the proceedings recorded with the ineligible Defence Representative would be removed. The third respondent called upon the petitioner to engage another Defence Representative in the rank of an Officer to assist him. The third respondent thereafter issued a notice dated 1st April 2014 intimating the petitioner that the enquiry would be conducted at 10.30 a.m on 16.04.2014 at VOC Nagar Branch, Thanjavur and it is open to him to appear along with Defence Representative. The proceedings dated 12th March 2014 and the subsequent notice dated 01.04.2014 are under challenge in this writ petition.