RAMAN C V Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the file of the first respondent vide proceedings in reference No. Nil, dated March 19, 1990 confirming the order of the second respondent vide proceedings in reference No. Nil, dated February 22, 1989 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service, with back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has joined as clerk in the first respondent bank on February 15. 1962. He was promoted as Headclerk in the year 1971 and subsequently in the year 1972 he was promoted as Officer Grade-II. In the year 1976 he was promoted as Officer Grade I and subsequently he has been promoted in the Middle Management Grade II in the year 1984. Till February 1985 he was posted as a Branch Manager in the Thanichayam Branch (Madurai District ). While he was working as the Branch Manager of the said Branch an allegation was made against him stating that he was favouring certain persons in the matter of grant of loan. During February, 1985 he was transferred from Thanichayam Branch to the Regional Office at Madurai. Then again he was transferred to Kumbakonam Branch and reverted as ordinary officer. The Regional Manager, Madurai issued a memo dated August 2, 1996 calling for his explanation on the said allegation. The memo was based on the alleged complaint received from the members of the public during September and October, 1984. In the memo it has been stated that an investigation was made on the said complaint and after a detailed enquiry the allegations against the petitioner came to be proved. The petitioner submitted his explanation on September 30, 1986. On July 13, 1987 the second respondent issued charge sheet and asked for the explanation before the initiation of the disciplinary action. On November 2, 1987 the enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer submitted his report on December 15, 1988. On the basis of the said report, the disciplinary authority, the General Manager (Operation) came to the conclusion of removal of the petitioner from service and recommended the same to the second respondent by his order dated February 21, 1989. By order dated February 22, 1989, the second respondent agreeing with the order of the disciplinary authority, imposed punishment on the petitioner for removal from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent on April 4, 1989. The first respondent rejected the appeal by his proceedings dated March 19, 1990. The said order of rejection is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the charge sheet was framed on an allegation which has no basis. He has also argued that the enquiry itselt is vitiated as the authorities have violated the principles of natural justice and no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner in the course of enquiry. It has also been argued that during the course of domestic enquiry, statement of witnesses were not produced. Learned counsel has also argued that the appellate authority has not properly considered the appeal while confirming the punishment of removal. He has further argued that as the appellate authority has failed to consider the appeal in proper perspective, the order of the appellate authority dated March 19, 1990 confirming the order of the second respondent dated September 22, 1989 is vitiated. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decision to substantiate his contention that there was no proper consideration of the appeal by the appellate authority. 1. Ram Chandar v. Union of India and Ors. 1986-II-LLJ-334 (SC); 2. Arokiadoss v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, 1989 Writ L. R 274; 3. P. Rajasekaranv, State of Tamil Nadu, 1990 Writ L. R. 113; 4. M. N. Prasad v. Board of Directors, Rayalseema Grameena Bank, 1995-II-LLJ-131 (A. I.); 5. Executive Committee, State Bank of Hyderabad v. D. Dhaneswara Rao, 1996-II-LLJ-272 (A. P.-DB); 6. M. A. Kalam v. Registrar (Management), High Court, A. P. Hyderabad, 1996 (4) S. L. R. 476. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per Sub-rule (2) to Section 51 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules where an appeal has been preferred, the appellate authority shall consider whether the findings are justified and/or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders. The appellate authority may pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Learned counsel has submitted that there was total non-application of mind by the appellate authority as no reasons were assigned in the order especially on the question of punishment. He has also argued that this Court cannot exercise the appellate jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while reviewing the order made by the disciplinary authority and it can interfere only when the disciplinary authority has committed manifest errors of law on the finding recorded by it is without any basis but cannot interfere in the assessment of evidence. He has further argued that when the order ] passed by the appellate authority is based not in conformity with the provisions to the Regulations, that order is subject to judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.