V K BAHADUR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of removal dated 10.4.87 Annexure-20 to the writ petition and the appellate order dated 18.6.88 Annexure-23 to the writ petition.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Probationary officer in the State Bank of India by order dated 11.11.71 vide Annexure-1 to the petition. After completing two years of probation he was posted as a regular Officer at the Johnstonganj Branch of the Bank at Allahabad. Thereafter he was transferred to various branches. While he was posted at the Railway Colony Branch at Gorakhpur in 1983 he was placed under suspension by order dated 26.4.83 vide Annexure-2 to the petition. Subsequently a charge-sheet dated 25.1.84 was served on him vide Annexure-3 to the petition. The petitioner wrote certain letters asking for inspection of certain documents. True copies of these letters are Annexures-3 to 6 to the petition. He received a reply vide Annexure-7 to the petition stating that inspection could not be given for want of specification and relevance vide Annexure-7 to the petition. He was asked to submit a list of documents and the relevancy thereof within seven days. Thereafter a supplementary charge-sheet dated 4.4.84 was served on him vide Annexure-8 to the petition. He again wrote on 30.4.84 demanding copies of certain documents and Inspections thereof vide Annexure-9 to the petition. A reply dated 25.5.84 was sent to him again asking for specification and relevancy vide Annexure-10 to the petition. He received another letter dated 9.7.84 asking him to submit a list of documents which he wanted to peruse. The petitioner gave a list of documents for inspection vide Annexure-12 to the petition. He received a letter from the Bank directing him to make inspection of the documents at the Churk Branch of the Bank in district Mirzapur vide Annexure-13 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 14 of the petition that the petitioner was ill and hence he sent a letter and telegram requesting for adjournment of the date of inspection of the documents vide Annexures-14 and 15 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 15 that no date was fixed for inspection and instead he received a letter dated 17.5.85 asking him to be present along with his representative in the enquiry on 3.6.85 vide Annexure-16 to the petition. On 3.6.85 certain proceedings were held vide Annexure-17 to the petition and on 20.8.85 inspection of some of the documents was given. True copy of the certificate of inspection is Annexure-18 to the petition.

(3.) It is alleged in paragraph 19 of the petition that 2.11.85 was fixed for examining the relevance of the defence documents but unfortunately the petitioner fell ill and hence he requested for fixing some other date. A copy of his letter is Annexure-19 to the petition. In paragraph 20 of the writ petition it is alleged that the Enquiry Officer Instead of postponing the date proceeded ex parte. In paragraph 21 of the petition it is stated that only certain documents were permitted to be inspected which were perused between 26.12.85 to 30.12.85 but inspection of all the documents was not allowed. In paragraph 22 of the petition it is alleged that without giving opportunity of cross-examination and producing defence documents and defence evidence the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter the impugned removal order vide Annexure-20 was passed. In paragraph 24 of the petition it is stated that the Disciplinary Authority did not furnish a copy of the enquiry report before passing the final order but supplied it with the removal order.