ADINATH NARAYANRAO JADHAV Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the order of punishment dated 13.09.1993 inflicting upon him the penalty of removal from services after departmental inquiry, and the Appellate order dated 04.05.1994 passed by the Deputy Managing Director (Personnel), as Appellate Authority, maintaining it. The petitioner was an officer working in MMGS II (i.e. Middle Management Grade Scale II) with the respondent State Bank of India, which is one of the Scheduled Bank. Nature of his work shows that he was holding post of confidence.

(2.) Service of charge sheet and conduct of departmental inquiry, or then order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are not in dispute. Shri Kalbande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the punishment of removal from service on the ground that vital documents demanded by the petitioner during the pendency of the departmental enquiry were not served/supplied to him, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse and though the enquiry officer did not find that all charges were established, the disciplinary authority without following the procedure prescribed, has held that all charges are established. He contends that Rule 50[3] of the State Bank of India (Supervising, Staff) Service Rules, expressly expect the disciplinary authority to record its reasons for differing with the findings of the enquiry officer and to extend an opportunity in this respect. Last ground raised by him was absence of notice before imposing punishment and its quantum.

(3.) While elaborating these grounds, the learned Counsel for petitioner has taken us through the charge sheet and also through the enquiry report to show how the receipts received by borrower from contractors for completing digging work, were relevant and it's non production has thus affected the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. He contends that in absence of those receipts, petitioner could not effectively cross examine the prosecution witnesses or defend himself. He further states that there was twice change of the enquiry officer and last change brought in one Guru Rao in that capacity. The earlier officer Shri Naigaonkar, was changed on the ground of alleged infirmities in conduct of the departmental enquiry. Shri Guru Rao, after assuming the charge, examined Shri S.S. Lasurkar, as additional witness, but then he was shown as defence witness. Because of this mischief, petitioner could not cross examine said witness Lasurkar. He has also taken us through the comments handed over by petitioner after receipt of the enquiry report, to show that how finding on each charge runs contrary to either the logic or then the material available on record.