A.D. PADHYE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager with the respondentbank and was heading Personal Banking Division. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 8th March, 2000 compulsorily retiring the petitioner pursuant to the Departmental Inquiry held against him in respect of the transactions relating to the Securities Scam of 199192. The transactions in question were carried out by the Securities Division, Mumbai Main Branch of the respondentbank and the bank alleges that the same resulted in loss of Rs.812 crores to the bank which may be very difficult to recover. The petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 23 rd November, 1993 as regards irregularities and malpractices at Securities Division, Mumbai Main Branch, Mumbai. The petitioner while working as Assistant General Manager of PBD has committed certain serious irregularities in discharge of his duties which as per the Articles of Charge are as under :

(2.) The petitioner submitted a detailed written statement of defence to the chargesheet on 16 th February, 1994. He denied the charges levelled against him. During the course of inquiry, the Presenting Officer introduced five prosecution documents which were marked and taken on record as Exh.S1 to Exh.S5. The petitioner introduced twenty five defence documents which were marked and taken on record as Exh.D1 to D25. The Presenting Officer did not examine any prosecution witness. The petitioner examined one defence witness whose evidence is recorded as DW1. The petitioner was generally examined as he was not examined as a witness. The Presenting Officer submitted his written submission on 21 st December, 1994 and that of the petitioner was submitted on 19th January, 1995.

(3.) The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and held that the charges levelled in the Articles of Charge are proved. The Disciplinary Authority upon considering the material on record and the inquiry report recommended that the petitioner failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence, thereby infringing Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. The Appointing Authority therefore imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 67(h) on the petitioner.