G L N ACHARYULU Vs. S B H

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for a writ of Certiorari, seeking to quash the proceedings of the first respondent Managing Director, dt.20-9-1989, confining the proceedings of the second respondent dt.30-12-1988, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the service.

(2.) Though the petitioner has assailed the order impugned on various counts, primarily, without adverting to the merits and demerits of the case, I have taken up to decide the matter only on the question of principles of natural justice, whether the petitioner was given a fair and reasonable opportunity before the final order is passed.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he was originally appointed as a Cashier- cum-Godown Keeper in the State Bank of Hyderabad on 4-8-1970 and was directed to report for duty at Jaggayyapet Branch. Later on, the petitioner was promoted as an Officer in the Junior Management Grade Scale I by proceedings No.Per/PF/2762, dt.23-6-1980 and was put on probation for a period of one year from 24-3-1980. He was posted as a Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Uttar Kanchi Branch in East Godavari district and worked in the said position from December, 1981 to August, 1983. While so, there were some complaints against the Branch Manager by one C. Babu Rao and his brother C. Ramaiah, as the petitioner did not sanction fresh loans to these persons. While proceedings of recovery were initiated by the petitioner, the said two persons entertained ill-feelings against the petitioner and levelled wild allegations complaining to the higher authorities. An anonymous letter dt.5-9-1982 threatening his life was also received by him. This fact was informed to the General Manager and the District Collector and sought police assistance also in this regard. It is stated by the petitioner that on the basis of anonymous letters, sent by some persons alleging the petitioner collecting funds for construction of a temple, using his office for the said purpose, the respondent-Bank deputed Sri Jalapathi Rao, Officer in-charge of staff matters on 30-9-1982 to enquire into the matter and submit his report. It is stated that the said Jalapathi Rao enquired into the allegations and submitted his report on 8-10-1982. It is further alleged that the said Jalapathi Rao conducted an enquiry behind the back of the petitioner without affording opportunity to him and submitted a report. It is stated that in the said report dt.8-10-1982, it is said to have been intimated that there were other allegations against the petitioner collecting funds from the borrowers for the purpose of construction of a temple. On the basis of the report of the said Jalapathi Rao, the Chief Vigilance Officer directed the Controlling Authority to make further enquiry about the allegations and to hand over the case to the Vigilance Wing. On the basis of the note dt.18-10-1982 of the Chief Vigilance Officer, one Sri C.N.K. Sharma, Administrative Officer was directed to enquire into the allegations and submit his report. Accordingly the said Sharma went to Uttar Kanchi and made enquiries behind the back of the petitioner and perused the records and submitted his report on 12-11-1982. It is contended that he has not found the petitioner guilty of any charge of collecting funds for construction of Venkateshwara temple at Uttar Kanchi. It is contended that the report of Sri Jalapathi Rao dt.8-10-1982 and report of Sri CN.K.Sharma dt.l2-11-1982 did not disclose that the petitioner while sanctioning loans collected illegal gratification. However it is contended by the petitioner that Sri C.N.K. Sharma, Administrative Officer went to Uttar Kanchi and abused the petitioner in the presence of various Officers, though objected by him. The said Officer seems to have contacted C. Babu Rao and C. Ramaiah, Harischandrudu and other followers of the said persons who sent information against the petitioner. This fact of Chief Vigilance officer inviting complaints against the petitioner from various sources was intimated to the General Manager by the petitioner, alleging that the Chief Vigilance Officer is being hostile towards the petitioner. It is contended that the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer was not furnished to him. However on the basis of the ex parte report of the Vigilance Officer, the petitioner was placed under suspension by proceedings GR/F & C/5, dt.6-4-1983 which was served on the petitioner on 26-8-1983. Subsequently the matter was entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation, Vishakapatnam on the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer and the petitioner was directed by Chief Vigilance Officer to report before the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation on 17-4-1984. Meanwhile the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of suspension and it was allowed by the Managing Director in his proceedings R-3/GR-3/C, dated 31-12-1984, withdrawing the order of suspension and reinstating the petitioner into service and was posted at Hanmakonda. While so once again by proceedings dt.18-1-1985 of the Regional Manager, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Accountant at Bellampally branch. The reinstatement, it is contended, was without prejudice to the proceedings that may beinitiated against the petitioner.