VISWANATHAN G Vs. REVIEWINGCOMMITEE STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1627 of 1999 was the Branch Manager and the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1642 of 1999 was the Accountant in the Mint Terminus Branch of the respondents-Bank.

(2.) While they both were working in such capacities, in the year 1982, on similar charges that they both have afforded immediate credits to a few current accounts in respect of cheques for large amounts presented in clearing before knowing their fates, despite the return of a few of them in the past, permitting withdrawals against such credits; purchasing local cheques for large amounts in excess of their discretionary powers as DDRR despite the fact that some of the cheques so purchased were returned unpaid for want of funds, withholding from the Controlling Authority the information regarding the lien marked against the TDRs held by the party while reporting purchases of cheques made from them on Form COS 325; resorting to window-dressing of deposit figures reported in the monthly 'P' Forms, permitting transfer of funds from one account to another without the express authority of the account holders, etc. an enquiry was contemplated by the respondents.

(3.) In the enquiry, no oral evidence has been let in on either side and based on the documentary evidence exhibited on either side, the Enquiry Officer by his reports dated November 12, 1986, had arrived at the conclusion that out of the charges levelled against the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1627 of 1999, charges No. (i), (i)(b), (iii) and (vi) were fully established and that charges No. (i)(a), (ii), (iv) and (v) were partly proved. Insofar as the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1642 of 1999 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer had held that out of the charges levelled against him, charges No. (i), (i)(b) and (iii) have been fully established and charges No. (i)(a), (ii), (iv) and (v) have been partly proved. But, the Enquiry Officer had not given any verdict regarding charge No. (vi), on ground that the same was suffering from infirmity. While recording his findings, the Enquiry Officer had also noted certain mitigating factors in favour of the appellants/delinquents to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority, while imposing punishment.