S VIJAYA KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is pending in the Courts from 1983. Three times the High Court decided the matter and on appeal each time, the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court. Now, this is the fourth occasion that the matter is being heard by this Court. For the first time the High Court pronounced its judgment in Writ Petition No. 194 of 1983 on 26th November, 1987. The petitioner was appointed as Probationary Officer Grade-I on 7-12-1971 by the Executive Committee of the Bank and confirmed against the said post. In pursuance of a disciplinary enquiry he was dismissed from service for charges of misconduct by an order dated 22-12-1982. This order had been passed by the Chief General Manager. The order was challenged and the High Court quashed the order on the ground that the Chief General Manager was not competent authority to pass the order of dismissal. This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Chief General Manager was in fact competent authority as he was the appointing authority and the order of dismissal had not been passed by an authority lower than the appointing authority, therefore the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the case to the High Court for deciding the Writ Petition on other points. Thereafter the matter came to be heard again by the High Court and a second judgment was pronounced on 29-3-1991. Very short judgment was passed by the High Court. Relying on its earlier judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1835 of 1988 decided on the same day, the Writ Petition was allowed, dismissal order was set aside and it was directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service in accordance with regulations with full backwages and other attendant monetary benefits. The second judgment of the High Court was passed on the principle laid down by the High Court in W.A.No. 1835/88 that the enquiry had been vitiated on the ground that the report of the Enquiry had not been supplied to the petitioner. This judgment also came to be challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal No. 295/91 again remanded the matter to the High Court. The Supreme Court held;

(2.) While hearing the matter on an earlier occasion this Court found that the petitioner had also filed a petition under Rule 51(2) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules which had been dismissed by a cryptic order on 22nd December, 1982 by the Local Board of the State Bank of India. This Court, therefore, passed an order on 9th December, 1998. This Court held that, Charge No. 2 could not be sustained on account of violation of principles of natural justice. It also found that the order passed by the appellate authority is laconic and non-speaking, therefore the order passed by the appellate authority could not sustain. Therefore, while keeping the Writ Petition on board, this Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal both in regard to sustainability of charge No. 1 and also with regard to the quantum of punishment. The Court directed the appellate authority to pass a fresh order. The appellate authority thereafter passed an order again dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was taken up for hearing once again.

(3.) Now, it is only the Charge No. 1 and the findings thereon which will have to be considered by this Court. Charge No. 1 contains seven allegations. It is reproduced: