S C GARG Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner S.C.Garg, while working as Branch Manager at one of the Branches of State Bank of India at Aligarh, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in which he was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service and recovery of an amount of Rs.88,934.00, vide order dated 12/12/1994 passed by the Chief General Manager, namely, the appointing authority(Annexure-10 to the writ petition). The statutory appeal preferred against the aforesaid punishment was also rejected by the appellate authority, namely, Deputy Managing Director & Corporate Development Officer, vide order dated 17.8.1995.

(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the present writ petition has been filed in which making a challenge to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the appointing authority in the order of punishment and that recorded by the appellate authority confirming the punishment order, learned counsel laid emphasis upon the scheme of working under the "Janta Deposit Scheme" floated by the State Bank of India for giving door to door service to the public at large An effort has been made to expose glaring faults in implementation of the aforesaid "Janta Deposit Scheme" which resulted in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and award of major punishment of removal from service coupled with the punishment of recovery of certain amount. The challenge has also been advanced on the ground that though there were other persons involved in the same transaction, namely, Deposit Collector under the "Janta Deposit Scheme", a Clerk of the Bank and the Accountant of the Bank, but the petitioner has been singled out in the matter of making recovery of the amount, though the petitioner did not admit the liability nor it could be proved by the Bank that the petitioner either used or misused or misappropriated the amount of the Bank, which has been disbursed under the loan advanced in the name of the parties, which find full description in the charge sheet.

(3.) An alternative argument has been made that even if there was fault on the part of the petitioner in not verifying the signatures and genuineness of loan applications and bonafides of the transaction, as the petitioner simply relied upon the recommendations and verification made by the subordinate staff, namely, Deposit Collector, Clerk of the Bank and the Accountant and, therefore, the action of the petitioner could not be termed as `misconduct' but could only be taken as `negligence' in the performance of his duties. The submission, therefore, is that for an act of negligence which has occurred because of the faulty scheme of the Bank itself, the petitioner could not have been saddled with major punishment nor with the punishment of recovery.