K SURESH BABU Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in State bank of India, 1st respondent herein, on 1. 3. 1988 against a vacancy reserved for scheduled Caste. From April 1997 onwards, he was working at Bhakrapeta Branch of kadapa District, and was placed In-charge of Gold Loan Accounts. It is stated that there were about 1100 gold loan accounts in that Branch. On 30. 5. 2003, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet, alleging that though he received a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, remitted by one M. Obaiah, to the credit of gold loan account No. AGL 14/432 and issued a receipt, he did not account for the said amount, in the books of the Branch. The petitioner denied the allegation, and departmental inquiry was conducted. The enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 6. 1. 2004, holding that the charge against the petitioner is not proved. The Disciplinary authority i. e. , 2nd respondent herein passed an order, dated 19. 2. 2004, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed writ Petition No. 5404 of 2004, before this court, challenging the order, dated 19. 2. 2004. The writ petition was allowed on 2. 12. 2004; the order dated 19. 2. 2004, was set aside, and it was left open to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice, dated 23. 3. 2005, requiring the petitioner to explain within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, as to why a different view on the findings of the enquiry Officer, be not taken, in view of the reasons mentioned in the notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 11. 4. 2005. The 2nd respondent was not convinced with the explanation offered by the petitioner, and vide memorandum, dated 11. 7. 2005, he held that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved and proposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner was given 14 days' time, to explain as to why the said punishment shall not be inflicted. Opportunity of personal hearing was also given to the petitioner. He submitted a written representation and made oral submissions on the fixed date. The 2nd respondent ultimately passed an order dated 30. 8. 2005, imposing the punishment of dismissal, against the petitioner. An appeal preferred by the petitioner to the 1st respondent was rejected on 13. 12. 2005. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) PETITIONER submits that the order of dismissal passed against him cannot be sustained, either on facts or in law. He contends that except stating that he does not agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd respondent did not state any reasons, in support of his conclusions, while holding that the charge was proved. It is also his case that the 2nd respondent relied upon material, which is not part of the enquiry record.