STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Vs. N NARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals-one by the Management viz., State Bank of Hyderabad, and the other by the Charged Officer-have been filed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 1-12-1986 in writ petition No. 352/1983. By the impugned judgment the dismissal was set aside holding that charge No. 2 was bad due to vagueness and also that the previous record of service of the officer was not considered by the punishing authority and the authority was directed to consider the previous> record of service in terms of paragraph 19 (12)-C of the Settlement and the finding that Charge No. 1 was established and then impose punishment. The contention of the Management is that the quashing of the order of dismissal is not proper, while the contention of the officer is that after quashing the order of dismissal any direction to the disciplinary authority to consider the matter afresh is not justified.

(2.) Some relevant facts have to be noticed : The writ petitioner was working as Head Cashier of the Saidabad Branch of the Bank during the relevant period. Sometime in March, 1980, a cash shortage of Rs. 68,000 and odd was discovered in the Branch and the petitioner who was the Head Cashier admitted his responsibility for the shortage in his letter dated 12-3-1980, i.e., immediately after discovery of the said shortage. A notice was given to the petitioner to make good the short-fall and at the same time a discipiainary proceeding was also initiated aganist him. Two charges were framed and served on the petitioner on 29-1-1981 to which he has given a reply dated 12-3-1981. The disciplinary proceeding was being adjourned from time to time at the request of the employee. Some time in June, 1982, he requested for an adjournment of the enquiry to a date in September, 1982, as the officers,, whose assistance he wanted to take, were busy in some meeting of the Union. This request was granted and the enquiry adjourned to a date in September, 1982. He also made an application dated 7-7-1982 for grant of permission to engage an advocate and this was declined by the order dated 28-7-1982. In the disciplinary proceedings also the officer gave in writing on 2-9-1982 accepting his earlier admission dated 12-3-1980 and also accepting that he was responsible for the misappropriation.

(3.) The two charges which were framed against the employee by the Charge Memo dated 29-9-1981 are as follows: