ARJUNA CHARAN MISHRA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an officer of the State Bank of India has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of punishment imposed in a departmental proceeding initiated against him. Admittedly a charge sheet was served on the petitioner on May 25, 1986 while he was working as a Branch Manager at Satkosia Branch. The substratum of charges of misconduct evident from the memorandum issued in terms of Rule 50(l)(i) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rule') are as follows:

(2.) In consonance with the notice, the petitioner submitted a show cause/explanation denying all the charges. The Management not being satisfied with the explanation, appointed an Enquiring Officer to conduct an inquiry in consonance with the Rules. It is alleged by the petitioner that the enquiring officer did not afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner to properly defend his case and without appreciating the facts and circumstances in proper perspective, basing upon surmises and conjectures, submitted his report holding as follows:

(3.) After taking into consideration the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority without serving a copy of the report on the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to show cause, suo motu accepted the report and illegally modified the finding with respect to Charge No. 5 holding that the said charge was totally proved. By order dated August 17, 1988, the Disciplinary Authority held that the petitioner has contravened Rule 32(4) of the Rules and decided to inflict the penalty of "reduction of basic pay by one stage" in terms of Rule 49(e) with effect from the date of service of the order and further directed that the period of suspension of the petitioner may be treated as not on duty. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority by his order dated June 11, 1990 dismissed the appeal, but, however, was pleased to direct that the period of suspension of the petitioner is to be treated to be as on duty and he should be paid emoluments during the period he was placed under suspension less the suspension allowance already paid to him. The Appellate Authority thereby confirmed the punishment to the effect of "reduction of pay by one stage".