CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Late Keshari Mardan Singh, father of the petitioner was employed as cash assistant (cash and accounts) in Amraudha branch of respondent State Bank of India, Kanpur. He expired on 24.10.1999 in harness while he was on medical leave. The petitioner appears to have submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of messenger. The bank enquired about indigent circumstances of the family by means of a letter dated 21.11.2000. In response to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner submitted details of the family members stating that the family was under indigent circumstances and that if opportunity is given to him to serve the bank, he will look after his mother and the family. Details of the family properties were also submitted by the petitioner through his letter dated 8.7.2001. He was then informed by the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal office, Range I, Kanpur through letter dated 21.8.2002 that after considering his case for appointment on compassionate ground and noting the fact that his father (since deceased), had committed misconduct while serving as Assistant (cash and account), the competent authority at Corporate Centre, Mumbai has rejected the proposal for compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

(2.) On receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 21.8.2002, the petitioner tried to know about the misconduct alleged to have been committed by his father as well as gravity of the crime alleged against him while he was in service. He got a copy of the charge-sheet said to have been served on his father in the year 1988 for wilful negligence in performance of his duties. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that on 13.7.1988, father of the petitioner had reported for duty at about 1.30 p.m. in a drunken state while he was holding temporary charge of cash office and had left the duty at 3.00 p.m. without locking the strongroom leaving it wide open. It is also averred that in the enquiry report submitted by the disciplinary authority, father of the petitioner was awarded major punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 14.12.1990 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. Regional Manager, Region I of the bank. It is the order of rejection of his claim dated 21.8.2002 for compassionate appointment which is being challenged by the petitioner on the ground that alleged misconduct of his deceased father was in fact not a misconduct rather was a case of negligence for a single day i.e. 13.7.1988, regarding which he had already been awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment in the year 1990.

(3.) It is stated that after the punishment was imposed, his father continued in service till his death on 24.10.1999 without any cause of grievance to the bank. It is lastly submitted that refusal of claim for compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee who had committed some misconduct during his service period, is not provided under the Rules of the Bank, hence the impugned order dated 21.8.2002 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust.