G SHANKARLINGAM Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed challenging the order of dismissal passed by the 2nd Respondent as confirmed by the appellate authority.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Staff Assistant in 1957 and he was being promoted from time to time. In the year 1980, the petitioner was working as Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Mancherial. In October, 1980 disciplinary proceedings were initiated and they were referred to Central Vigilance Commission. The petitioner was suspended on 7-10-1980 and a charge sheet was issued on 13-8-1981 containing 16 charges. The enquiry was conducted by one of the Officer under Vigilance Commissioner. The Enquiry Officer held 13 charges as established, thereupon the matter was considered by the disciplinary authority and finally the disciplinary authority passed an order on 7-3-1983 dismissing the petitioner from service. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board and the same was also considered by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 20-10-1984 and the same was rejected. The contention of the writ petitioner is that he was governed by the State Bank of Hyderabad Staff Assistants Service Rules, 1959 and therefore the action under the State Bank of Hyderabad Officers Service Regulations, 1979 ought not to have been taken. He further submits that under former Service Rules, the General Managers are competent to take disciplinary action whereas in the latter case, the Managing Director was made as a disciplinary authority. Further, the grievance of the petitioner is that under 1959 Rules, the Vigilance Commissioner has no power to conduct an enquiry. Even otherwise it was submitted that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Rules and it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He also submits that the Criminal Cases were instituted for the alleged misappropriation of the funds. However, the Criminal Courts found him guilty of the charges and sentenced the petitioner, but on appeal, the petitioner was acquitted and therefore the Bank has failed to take into consideration orders of the acquittal passed by the High Court. He also submits that in respect of the amounts due from various borrowers, the Bank filed suit in which the petitioner was also made as one of the Defendants. While the suits were decreed against the borrowers, the case was dismissed against the petitioner holding that he was not responsible and therefore he submits that the charges are frivolous and fabricated.

(3.) On the other hand, the Bank filed counter stating that the 1959 Rules have no application and the petitioner is governed by 1979 Rules and the action taken by the bank is in accordance with the said Rules. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend his case and therefore the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise. Secondly also it was submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Commissioner attached to the office of Chief Vigilance Commissioner cannot be said to be illegal as under the Regulations it is open for the disciplinary authority either to conduct the enquiry by himself or he can appoint an Enquiry Officer, who is a public servant. Inasmuch as, the Vigilance Commissioner falls within the definition of public servant and there is no irregularity in the conduct of such appointment of Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority has considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and came to an independent conclusion that the charges were fully established and therefore imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The appellate authority also considered all the contentions raised in the Appeal and the same was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner cannot complain that his case did not receive fair treatment in the hands of the bank.