BANERJEE R N Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceeding, the enquiry report and the order of dismissal from service passed against him. The petitioner joined the State Bank of India as a Probationary Officer on March 1, 1961. In October, 1986 he was posted at the Antwerp (Belgium) Branch of the State Bank of India as its Chief, that is, as the Chief Manager of the Branch. He was in that branch upto April 1990 and was thereafter repatriated to India. On or about April 17, 1990 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had committed serious irregularities and also resorted to irregular practices mentioned therein for the purpose of his personal gain and was asked to submit explanation within a specified period. In the said show cause notice dated April 17, 1990 which was served on the petitioner while he was still at Antwerp, it was mentioned that if he needed to refer to the branch records for the purpose of preparing his explanation he might do so before he left Antwerp for India and that the Bank would not later entertain any request from him for visiting Antwerp again for the purpose of scrutinising the branch records. However, the petitioner, after returning to India wrote from Calcutta to the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, International Division, Bombay by a letter dated April 30, 1990, Annexure C to the writ petition, requesting him to furnish certain documents mentioned therein for the purpose of enabling him to submit his reply to the show cause notice. The Bank authority in turn, by letter dated May 25, 1990, Annexure-D, pointed out to him that to facilitate the preparation of his reply to the Banks letter dated April 17, 1990 he was permitted to retain the official accommodation at Antwerp beyond the stipulated period of 15 days reckoned from the date of relief but the petitioner declined to avail himself of that opportunity to complete the examination of the documents at the Antwerp centre. However, the petitioner was asked to visit the Bombay Office after giving prior notice for the purpose of scrutinising the relevant documents. In his letter dated June 6, 1990, Annexure-E addressed to the Chief General Manager, S.B.I., International Division, Bombay, the petitioner explained the reason why he could not avail opportunity of consulting records at the Antwerp office before leaving Antwerp. He also expressed his inability to visit the Bombay Office because of his ill health and requested the Chief General Manager to furnish him copies of the concerned documents so that he might submit his reply to the show cause notice dated April 17, 1990. Thereafter by their letter dated June 27, 1990 the Bombay Office of the Bank forwarded photostat copies of documents to the petitioner asking him to reply latest by July 15, 1990. By a letter dated July 12, 1990, Annexure-G, the petitioner informed the Chief General Manager that certain documents on which the petitioner would rely had not been supplied and as such he would not be in a position to give effective reply in absence of those documents. Thereafter further correspondence followed between the petitioner and the Bombay Office of the Bank regarding documents. The Bank authorities objected to supply certain documents on the ground that those documents were not necessary for the purpose of the reply of the petitioner.

(2.) Ultimately the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated September 4, 1990, Annexure-K, passed in terms of Rule 50-A (a) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. This suspension order was however challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition which was disposed of by Shyamal Kr. Sen, J., by order dated September 14, 1990, Annexure-L. In that order the learned Judge took notice of the fact that the petitioner was on leave from the month of April 1990 on the ground that he was suffering from Leukemia and felt that since the petitioner was not attending his official duties and also would not go out of his residence except on medical advice it was not necessary to use the word 'suspension' but he would be paid at the rate of subsistence allowance and the respondent authorities were entitled to suspend the petitioner in all other respects. The learned Judge also passed an order to the effect that the word 'suspension' used in the impugned order would not be given effect to but in all other respects the impugned order would remain effective. It was also made clear by the learned Judge that the respondents would be at liberty to initiate all proceedings by issuing charge sheet and by taking disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law and observed that in the event any disciplinary proceeding was initiated the same should be concluded within six months from the date of such initiation after affording the writ petitioner opportunity to defend. The petitioner was also directed to co-operate with the respondents for expeditious conclusion of the proceeding. It was further directed that if necessary the evidence of the petitioner might be taken at his residence. By letters dated September 10, 1990 and October 9, 1990 the petitioner replied to the show cause notice dated April 17, 1990, vide Annexure-M.

(3.) Charge-sheet was however issued thereafter against the petitioner on March 26, 1991, vide Annexure-C. The petitioner makes a grievance that this charge-sheet does not contain any reference to the replies earlier given by the petitioner in respect of the show cause notice served on him. Well, that does not, I must may, make the charge-sheet or the disciplinary proceeding bad. The petitioner gave a reply to the said charge-sheet by his letter dated April 12, 1990. The petitioner also moved a writ petition against the purported disciplinary action taken against him and the said writ petition was disposed of by Kalyanmoy Ganguly, J., by order dated May 28, 1991, vide Annexure-Q. In disposing of the writ petition the learned Judge gave certain directions as quoted below:--