R K GITE S K GITE EX-ASSISTANT MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER STATE BANK OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner should be totally exonerated and should be reinstated with full back wages because he bas been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2003 decided on 5th August, 2004. The departmental enquiry holding the petitioner to be guilty is vitiated and deserves to be quashed because principle of natural justice was not taken into consideration and by not following the principle of natural justice, the petitioner has been held to be guilty of the charges. These are the two main grounds which have been vehemently argued by Shri Upadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) IT is no more in dispute that at the relevant time the petitioner was serving on the post of Assistant Manager in Jain Mandir Gas Relief Extension Counter, Bhopal of the State Bank of India and was the custodian of the said Extension Counter. On a surprise checking it was found that rupees one lac was deficient and, therefore, an FIR was lodged in order to bring the criminal law in motion. The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC which was found to be proved by the trial Court and eventually he was convicted, but, in appeal he was acquitted. In the judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the amount was not misappropriated by the petitioner in order to prove an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC, as a result of which the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was acquired.

(3.) EARLIER to the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal Court a departmental enquiry was set-up against him and the charges were leveled against him which are mentioned in Annexure-P-1, and which read as under: Statement of Allegations While you were Working as Officer-in-Charge at Jain Mandir Gas Relief Extension Counter (under Hamidia Road (Bhopal) Branch), on 28. 4. 92, a shortage of Rs. 1,00 lac was found in the cash balance held in your sole custody, by the Branch Manager, Hamidia Road Branch, who carried out the surprise verification of the cash of the extension counter on that date. You, being the sole custodian of the cash of the Extension Counter and personally responsible for the correctness of the cash held in your single custody, failed to protect the Bank's interests and the Bank has been saddled with a pecuniary loss of Rs. 1 lac. Articles of Charges You are charged with gross negligence in the performance of your duties unmindful of Bank's interests. By failing to protect the Bank's interests/cash, you have exhibited lack of devotion to duty. Your acts are unbecoming of a Bank official and contravene Rule No. 50 (4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules governing your service in the Bank. Needless to emphasis the petitioner refuted the charges, as a result of which the Bank examined its departmental witnesses. Since the petitioner absented himself from the departmental enquiry, the enquiry was later on complete in ex-parte. The enquiry officer found the charges to be proved and sent its report to the disciplinary authority, The disciplinary authority vide its order Annex. P-2 found the charges to be proved on the basis of the material placed on record as well as on the basis of the evidence and hence vide order dated 19. 11. 1996 punished the petitioner by dismissing him from the service.