C R KODANDA RAMAN Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges his removal from service by the order dated 8-6-1987 passed by the second respondent which was confirmed on appeal by the Local Board on 20-2-1989. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, in brief, are as follows:

(2.) The petitioner, who was serving as an Officer (MMG-II) in the State Bank of India, was served with a charge-memo dated 28-3-1986 levelling certain charges of misconduct against him andhe was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry into the said charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding all the charges to be established. The Chief General Manager, first respondent herein, who was the Disciplinary Authority, agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, recommended the punishment of removal from service to the Deputy Managjng Director and Appointing Authority, the second respondent herein. The second respondent, after due examination of the entire proceedings and after considering the explanation from the petitioner, concurred with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and passed the impugned order dated 8-6-1987 removing the petitioner from service. Questioning the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 12-9-1987 to the Managing Director who was the Appellate Authority as per the rules then in force. The appeal was, however, forwarded to the Local Board which was constituted as the Appellate Authority by the circular dated 1-6-1988. The Local Board rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of removal from service by its order dated 20th February, 1989. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Sri S.L. Chennakesava Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions: (1) The Local Board is not competent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner and its order is wholly without jurisdiction. (2) The authorities below proceeded on theerroneous assumption that the petitioner has admitted some of the charges. The petitioner made no such admission. As such the impugned orders as vitiated. (3) The petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer rejected his request for production ofrecords on irrelevant grounds. So also his request for production of certain official witnesses of the bank was turned down. Principles of natural justice have been thus violated and the enquiry is thereby wholly vitiated.