REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA Appellant

V/S

PALANIAPPAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA V. PRAKASH CHAND JAIN [REFERRED TO]
A.L. KALRA V. PROJECT AND EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. [REFERRED TO]
VINCENT V. DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. H C GOEL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SARDAR BAHADUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RATTAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
B C CHATURVEDI UNION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
R S SAINI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HARDWARI LAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VS. SHASHIKANT S PATIL [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA SWAMY VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC NWKRTC VS. A T MANE [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL SECY GOVT OF A P VS. M ADINARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. RAMESH DINKAR PUNDE [REFERRED TO]
ROOP SINGH NEGI VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. GYAN CHAND CHATTAR [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VS. JAI BHAGWAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. RAM LAL BHASKAR [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN HUME PIPE CO LTD VS. INDUSTRIAL COURT [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. NARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. P GUNASEKARAN [REFERRED TO]
G.M. (OPERATIONS) S.B.I. VS. R. PERIYASAMY [REFERRED TO]
PREM NATH BALI VS. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) VS. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMESH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Intra-Court Appeal is preferred against the Order, dtd. 7/2/2020 made in W.P. No.18983 of 2005, whereby the Writ Court had set aside the punishment of removal from service imposed on the Writ Petitioner and directed the Appellants to give all the monetary and consequential benefits as if he had continued in service till the age of superannuation.

(2.) The short facts to be noted in the Appeal is that the Respondent/ Writ Petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk on 17/11/1998 in the Appellant bank and thereafter was posted as Assistant in Karaikudi Branch on 22/11/2002. While so, on 19/12/2002, he was placed under Suspension contemplating initiation of Disciplinary proceedings for having committed certain serious irregularities. The Charge Memo came to be issued on 16/5/2003 containing the following five charges:

(3.) It seems that the Respondent had not chosen to offer any explanation by submitting a reply to the Charge Memo. However the Bank by proceedings, dtd. 15/7/2003, appointed an Enquiry Officer for conducting enquiry. Pursuant to the enquiry in the Disciplinary proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his Report on 15/4/2004 holding that the Charges 1, 3, 4 & 5 as proved and Charge No.2 as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proposed to impose punishment of 'Dismissal Without Notice from the Bank Service' and issued 2nd show cause notice to the Respondent on 14/6/2004. On receipt of reply, personal hearing was adduced to the Respondent on 26/6/2004 and ultimately by an Order, dtd. 12/7/2004, the 4th Appellant imposed the punishment of dismissal without notice from bank service with immediate effect.

Click here to view full judgment.

MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. PALANIAPPAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address