VIJAYA NARAIN SRIVASTAVA Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 11.12.2000 ( Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the General Manager (Development & Personnel Banking), State Bank of India, Lucknow, respondent no.2, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 22.4.2001 ( Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Lucknow, respondent no.1 rejecting the appeal filed against the order dated 11.12.2000 aforesaid. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him on his post with all consequential benefits with continuity of service and arrears of salary etc. within a specified period fixed by the Court. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk in the respondent bank on 18.10.1966. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Officer Grade-II on 1.6.74 and on the post of Officer Middle Management Grade-II on 1.8.1989. While he was working as Deputy Manager at Banaras Hindu University Branch of State Bank of India, an FIR was lodged against him in case crime no. 128 of 1994, under Section 419 and 420 IPC at P.S. Lanka, Varanasi. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner on 27.7.1994. After a lapse of 5 years, he was served with a notice dated 16th March, 1999 for holding a departmental enquiry under Rule 68 (2)(iii) of the State Bank Officers Service Rules annexing therewith the statement of charges levelled against him, which reads thus:-

(2.) THEREAFTER, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 11th December, 2000 after considering the enquiry report as well as the reply filed by the petitioner passed an order of dismissal from service against him.The Disciplinary authority has also found that the bank has suffered a loss and therefore, the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner has been forfeited to the extent of loss caused to the respondent bank. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.12.2000, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4751 of 2001 before this Court and has simultaneously filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The aforesaid writ petition no. 4751 of 2001 after hearing counsel for the parties was disposed directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Pursuant thereto the petitioner filed a departmental appeal which too was dismissed vide order dated 27th April, 2001, hence the instant writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

(3.) THE Court in these circumstances, quashed the order impugned setting the respondents at liberty to hold disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner in the matter afresh. However, in the instant case, the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and he was also permitted to examine the original documents on which the reliance has been placed by the bank. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable from the case of Narendra Kumar Pandey (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid two impugned orders on frivolous grounds; that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing the aforesaid two orders impugned in the present writ petition there was violation of principles of natural justice is absolutely misconceived and untenable. According to him, this contention is incorrect as the petitioner was not only given full opportunity of hearing but was also permitted to examine the documents relied upon by the bank at the time of enquiry.