BABOO LAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioner Baboo Lal has challenged the order of his removal from service and sought for a direction to treat the petitioner in the service of the State Bank of India respondent No. 1.

(2.) PETITIONER joined the service in the State Bank of India on 9th April, 1959. Subsequently he was appointed as Trainee Officer with effect from 16th August. 1965. The petitioner was confirmed as Staff Officer Grade III with effect from 1st December. 1967.

(3.) ON 17th August, 1979 he was served with a charge -sheet by the Chief General Manager. In the said charge -sheet 11 charges were levelled against the petitioner. Enquiry report was submitted by the enquiring officer on 15th March, 1982 holding the charges No. 1 to 9 to have been established against the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter dismissed from service on 4th September, 1982. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred a writ petition praying for the quashing of the charge -sheet dated 17th August, 1979. This Writ Petition No. 9361 of 1981 was dismissed and the interim order, dated 30th July,1981 was discharged. The dismissal order was served on the petitioner on 15th May. 1984. He preferred an appeal which was rejected on 7th April, 1986. The petitioner then preferred Writ Petition No. 5235 of 1986 against the said dismissal order. The writ petition was allowed on 2nd April, 1991 and the dismissal order as well as the order of dismissal of appeal were quashed. It was, however, directed that the respondents shall hold the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner from the stage at which it was to be held on January 30,1982 and shall complete the enquiry within a period of three months from the date on which the copy of the order was produced by the petitioner before the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India. Lucknow provided the petitioner cooperates. It was also directed in the said judgment dated 2nd April, 1991 that if the petitioner does not co -operate in the enquiry, the respondents may proceed ex parte.