N.PALANISAMY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition challenging the order of the fourth respondent dated 05.01.2005 dismissing the petitioner from service and the order of the third respondent dated 02.07.2005 rejecting the petitioner's appeal and confirming the order of the fourth respondent and the order of the second respondent dated 20.04.2009 rejecting the review petition and directing the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service, with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 15.09.1978. He was promoted on 01.08.1988 as Junior Management Grade-I. Again by the order dated 21.08.2001, he was promoted as Middle Management Grade-II with effect from 01.11.1996. He was posted as Branch Manager of Swamynathapuram Branch, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District on 30.06.1995 and worked up to 25.02.2002. He was then transferred to Commercial Branch, Tirupur as Deputy Manager and he joined duty on 26.02.2002. While he was working in the said branch, he was suspended from service by the order dated 03.02.2003. A charge memo dated 16.09.2003 was issued to the petitioner based on the preliminary report. After domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and the fourth respondent by the order dated 05.01.2005 terminated the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent and the same was rejected by the order 02.07.2005. The review petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the second respondent by the order dated 20.04.2009. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was suspended from service with effect from 03.02.2003 and he was terminated by the order of the fourth respondent dated 05.01.2005. The petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance as per Rule 67 A (7) (i) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. The respondents inspite of repeated requests and remainders, failed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner could not effectively put forth his case in the domestic enquiry as he was not in a position to maintain his family and educate his children. As per the judgment of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, non-payment of subsistence allowance is a gross violation of principles of natural justice and entire proceedings are liable to be set aside.