P JAJACHANDRA RAO Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was the Branch Manager of the State Bank of Hyderabad was dismissed from service as a disciplinary measure by an order Dated 16.11.1987 passed by the second respondent-Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundary, Hyderabad, which was confirmed by the appellate authority, the first respondent by an order dated 30.11.88. This writ petition was filed for a certiorari calling for the records of the order of dismissal as confirmed by the appellate authority and to quash the same.

(2.) The alleged acts of misconduct attributed to the petitioner occurred in 1985 when he was working as Manager of the Shabad Branch. Four staff members of the Shabad Branch gave a written representation to the Regional Manager, State of Bank of Hyderabad making certain allegations against the petitioner; they pertain to the fictitious overdraft relating to a customer by name. T. Papi Reddy, misuse of the motor-cycle bearing Regn. No. AAX 8925 belonging to the Bank and incurring of false expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1100.00 by the petitioner on the ground of having hired a jeep purportedly for official purposes. A preliminary investigation was conducted by one K. Raghunatha Rao, Zonal Officer (examined as MW 10 before the Enquiry Officer) of Hyderabad Office and based upon his report dated 11.5.85 the petitioner was kept under suspension by an order dated 17.5.85. A charge-sheet dated 21.8.85 containing the three following charges was served on the petitioner and he was asked to submit a written statement.

(3.) As the explanation was found to be not satisfactory, the management appointed one B. Someswara Rao as the Enquiry Authority by an order dated 20th Dec., 1985 to conduct enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the three charges. On behalf of the management 10 witnesses were examined and 46 exhibits were marked. On behalf of the charged petitioner only one witness was examined and three documents were marked as exhibits. Among the witnesses examined was one S.K. Jain, (M.W.9), Government examiner of questioned documents. His opinion was marked as Ex.M.E.28 before the Enquiry Officer. His testimony was to the effect that the specimen signature of Papi Reddy did not tally with the signature found on the reverse of the cheque bearing No. 116479 dated 1.5.85 and that the writing on the leave application of the petitioner (treated as specimen handwriting of the petitioner) and the writings on the body of the cheque bearing No. 116473 are by one and the same person. In other words, his testimony is to the effect that the signature of Papi Reddy on the cheque presented in the name of the Papi Reddy was a forged one. As regards charge No. 3 the Enquiry Officer held that :