MUKUL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 1st June, 1983 (Annexure-P/14), passed by the disciplinary authority, whereby, as a measure of punishment after the departmental enquiry, petitioner has been removed from the service of the respondent Bank. Petitioner further prays for quashing of the appellate order dated 28-8-1985 (Annexure P/3), whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the disciplinary authority. It is relevant here to state that later on, by order dated 28th September, 1985 (Annex. P/4) the appellate authority has substituted the words "dismissed from the Bank's service" to that of "removed from the Bank's service".

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as officer in the Junior Management Grade of the respondent State Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as the Bank. While he was serving as such, a disciplinary action was initiated and by letter dated 15th April, 1982, he was charge-sheeted. It consisted of four charges, these were :-

(3.) ON receipt of the charge-sheet, petitioner submitted his reply dated 26-4-1982 (Annex. P/9) denying all the allegations made against him. However, before that, by order dt. 23-4-1982, respondent Bank appointed the Enquiry Officer as also the Presenting Officer for the Bank. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report holding the petitioner guilty for Charge No. 1. Enquiry Officer further found that allegation of wilfully allowing misutilisation of the loan, which is subject matter of Charge No. 2 has been proved but ingredients II and III are not established. Enquiry Officer further held that respondents have not been able to substantiate Charge No. 3 but found Charge No. 4 proved.