JAGDISH ESWAR Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY STATE BANK OF INDIA CENTIAL OFFICE BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an officer of the State Bank of India in the Middle Management Grade-II. He was promoted to that post in August, 1982 and was functioning as First Officer in the Development Manager (SIB)'S Department, State Bank of India, Hyderabad Local Head Office. He was transferred to the State Bank of India, Sangareddy branch as Associate Lead Bank Officer in July, 1984. He made a representation to the General Manager (Planning) to keep the order of transfer in abeyance for certain domestic reasons. Accordingly, the order was kept in abeyance. For different reasons the order of transfer was not given effect till December, 1984. On the ground that the post to which the petitioner was transferred was categorised as Junior Management Grade-I and that the order of transfer was a vindictive one, the petitioner did not report to duty at Sangareddy. He made a representation to the Development Manager, State Bank of India, to keep the order in abeyance. However, he wis relieved of his duties in his department with effect from 15-1-1985. The petitioner started marking his attendance in the Register meant for the award staff, though the Bank did not maintain attendance register for the supervising staff, on the apprehension that the period thereafter would be treated as absence. This state of affairs continued till 11-5-1985 when he was placed under suspension by order dated 9-5-1985 on the allegation of gross disobedience. On 14-9-1985 a charge sheet was issued to him stating that his acts amount to violation of Rules 32(1) and 32(2) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules (for short "the Rules") and also unbecoming of an officer which is in violation of Rule 32(4) of the Rules. The Petitioner submitted his explanation. After enquiry the petitioner was found guilty of the charges framed against him. The disciplinary authority by proceedings (DPC) No 214, dated 4-2-1986 inflicted the punishment of censure and non-payment of salary for the period he was under suspension. He was further ordered to join duty at Sangareddy as Associate Lead Bank Offer. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 7-4-1986 to the Managing Director and Appellate Authority of the State B ink of India, Central Office, Bombay, on the ground that though the punishment of censure is a minor punishment, yet by upholding the order of transfer as lawful and reasonable the punishment of major penalty of reduction to a poit lower than his grade was inflicted. It was further contended that the discipliniry proceedings were concluded without enquiry and as the Genenl Manager and Disciplinary Authority was not the appointing authority, major penalty of reduction to a lower post had been inflicted without jurisdiction and in contravention of the rules and principles of natural justice. But that appeal was not forwarded to the authority on the ground that the penalty imposed is a minor penalty and the petitioner was advised to appeal to the Local Board at Hyderabad which is the appellate authority for minor penalties. In the meanwhile, letter No. DPC (LHO) 425, dated 14-2-1987 was received from the Chief General Manager, Hyderabad, directing the petitioner to join duty within a period of 15 days or else face the possibility of losing the job by way of voluntary vacation of service. The petitioner approached the Managing Director requesting for stay of the said order. As no orders were passed by the Managing Director, be joined the duty on 28-2-1987 at Sangareddy.

(2.) In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of transfer dated 10-1-1985 and the consequential disciplinary proceedings and the order imposing the penalty of censure on 4-2-1986 and the letter dated 14-2-1987, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) The Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India, filed a counter-affidavit for the respondents. It is admitted that the petitioner was promoted as Officer, MMG Scale-II with effect from 1-8-1982. It is stated that the petitioner was transferred as Associate Lead Bank Officer, Sangareddy by the Circle Placement Committee on administrative grounds, on 12-7-84. On the represenfation of the petitioner he was retained in Hyderabad till 15-1-1985. Under terms of Paragraph-47, Chapter X of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979, every officer is liable to be transferred to any office or branch of the Bank or any place in India. Whenever relieving orders were about to be served, the petitioner used to request for keeping the relieving order in abeyance; his request was considered upto 15-1-1985 when he was relieved. In July, 1984 when the petitioner was first transferred as Associate Lead Bank Officer, ttie said post was not categorised as Officer Junior Management Grade-I. But it was so categorised in December, 1984. The petitioner was informed that the officers available in Officer Middle Management Grade Scale-II were more than the number of posts categorised as such, so posting of officers Middle Management Grade Scale-II in the post categorised for officers Junior Management Grade Scale-I, could not be avoided; but the petitioner would be drawing the salary and allowances of an Officer Middle Management Grade Scale-II. He was also informed that it does not result in reduction to a lower grade inasmuch as no punishment of reduction to a lower grade was inflicted on him. The categorisation of officers is done every year by the Bank and in the process it often happens that a higher grade officer may happen to work in a lower grade post and vice versa as it is not always possible to create as many posts as there are officers of a particular grade. After relieving, the petitioner went on marking in the the attendance register meant for award staff which is unbecoming of the petitioner holding a responsible post of the officer of the respondent-Bank. In the circumstances, the management was left with no alternative but to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, as otherwise it was apprehended that this would encourage indiscipline among other employees and put the Bant, a public institution, to intimidation. It is admitted that the Chief General Manager is the Disciplinary authority, but during the material time, as that post was vacant, the General Manager (Operation) was designated as Disciplinary Authority. This was also notified by the Bank in Circular No. (PER) 151, dated 16-11-1985. Therefore, the General Manager (Operation) issued the charge sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner was provided with reasonable opportunity to submit his statement of defence in reply to the charge sheet and accordingly on 2-1-1986 he submitted his explanation. After considering the documentary evidence, the Disciplinary Authority found the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him and though the petitioner's acts would attract a deterrent punishment, considering the petitioner's young age with a view to afford him an opportunity to show a better account of himself, the Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view and awarded the punishment of censure which is not a major penalty. Further, the period spent by the petitioner under suspension was not treated as on duty for payment of any amount. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Managing Director against the order of the Disciplinary Authority passed on 7-4-1986 erroneously interpreting Service Rule 49 (e) i.e., "reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in a time scale" as major penalty whereas the punishment imposed on the petitioner was censure which is a minor penalty and the appropriate appellate authority for the minor penalty was the Local Board at the material time but not the Deputy Managing Director. The petitioner joined duty on 28-2-1987. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.