LAWS(TRIP)-2016-4-46

SAMARENDRA KISHORE ENDOW Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA; CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER; DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR & CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

Decided On April 07, 2016
Samarendra Kishore Endow Appellant
V/S
State Bank Of India; Chief General Manager; Deputy Managing Director And Corporate Development Officer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12.12.2013 in W.P. (C) No.53 of 2005 whereby, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) This case has a long and chequered history. The appellant was appointed as a Cashier in the State Bank of India in the year 1968. He was firstly promoted as Officer Grade-II and then as Officer Grade-I. In the year 1981, he was working in the Phek Branch of the Bank at Nagaland. He was transferred to the Amarpur Branch in the State of Tripura in the year 1981. After joining the Branch at Amarpur, the appellant claimed certain amounts by way of reimbursement for expenses incurred by him in shifting his belongings and other articles from Phek to Amarpur. On inquiry, it was found that the appellant had filed forged and false documents and therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on five Charges. The inquiry officer held that all the 5 Charges were proved. However, the disciplinary authority held that though Charges I, II, III and V relating to submission of false bills were proved, Charge No.IV relating to having assets disproportionate to the known source of income was not proved. Penalty of removal of service was imposed on the appellant. The appellant thereafter, filed Civil Rule No.3 of 1996 in the Agartala Bench of the High Court of Gauhati which writ petition was allowed on three grounds (i) non-supply of report of inquiry officer before imposition of penalty; (ii) appellate order not being a speaking order and (iii) the findings of the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority on Charges I, II, III and V were based on no evidence and were perverse.

(3.) The State Bank of India filed an appeal against the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court and this appeal has been disposed of by the Apex Court vide judgment reported as (State Bank of India and others vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow and another, 1994 2 SCC 537). The Apex Court held that the first ground taken by the High Court with regard to non-supply of inquiry officer report was not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karmakar, 1993 4 SCC 727. The Apex Court also upheld the findings of the inquiry officer on Charges I, II, III and V. The Apex Court dealt with each Charge separately and held that the Charges stood proved. Lastly, the Court dealt with the issue of the punishment being excessive and went on to hold as follows:-