RAM DHIN GUPTA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th May, 1984 dismissing him from service (Annexure A) as well as the order dated 8-12-1984 dismissing his appeal by the appellate authority (Annexure B ).

(2.) PRIOR to his dismissal from service the petitioner was working as Officer junior Management in the State Bank of India at Rewa Branch. The petitioner had two accounts in the State Bank - one Saving Bank Account and another gold Loan Account. On scrutiny of his Saving Bank Account it appeared to the bank Authorities that the balance contained in his Saving Bank Account was inflated by the petitioner by Rs 1,000/- by adding the figure '1' in the thousand column in the ledger sheet in the balance of 26th and 28th April, 1982. It was alleged that this was done by the petitioner with a fraudulent intention to get withdrawal of Rs. 1,034. 30 P. posted and transferred to his Gold Account. An explanation was sought from the petitioner about his aforesaid conduct. The petitioner denied the allegation regarding addition of figure '1' to the thousand column in the ledger sheet. The petitioner stated in his explanation that he had an occasion to check the entries in his account and found discrepancy and, therefore, he corrected the balance and reported the matter immediately to the officials. Thereafter the petitioner was suspended on 27th October, 1982 and formal charge sheet was issued against him, in respect of the aforesaid allegations. A departmental enquiry was held against him by Shri R. M. Upadhyaya. The Enquiring Officer by his report dated 24th October, 1983 (Annexure G) exonerated the petitioner by recording the finding that the charge that "on 6th May, 1982, he wilfully and with the mala fide intention of facilitating the debit of the amount to the account, caused fraudulent manipulations in his saving Bank Account and further wilfully caused creation of unauthorised overdraft in his saving bank account", was not proved and that the petitioner was sincere, honest and he had no mala fide intention to cheat the Bank. The enquiring Officer, however, observed that only defect that he could find during the enquiry, was that the petitioner did not act prudently and failed to assess the risk, he took in not reporting the fact to the Branch Manager. Disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the Enquiring Officer and after recording his reasons for disagreement (Annexure H) took the view that the charges against the petitioner were proved and finding him guilty of the misconduct passed the impugned order dated 19th May, 1984 (Annexure A) dismissing the petitioner from service.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal to the Local Board of the State Bank of India under Rule 51 of the 'state Bank of India (Supervisory Staff) Service rules'. The Local Board by its resolution upheld the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and dismissed the petitioner's appeal which was communicated to the petitioner by order dated 8-12-1984 (Annexure B ). The petitioner seeks quashing of these 2 orders by a writ in the nature of certiorari and a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other monetary benefits, on the grounds :