RAMANATH NAYAK Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, to quash the order dated 14.02.1990, passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexures -9 and order dated 3.10.1991, passed by the Appellate Authority of the State Bank of India vide Annexure -11 imposing punishment of reduction of the basic pay of the petitioner to five stages.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an interview, he was appointed as Officer, Grade -I in the State Bank of India in the year 1975. Thereafter, he was promoted to the rank of O.M.M. Grade -II with effect from 1.08.1984. While working in Grade -II in Zonal office, Bhubaneswar, he was placed under suspension. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on 7.09.1987. The charges were framed. The first charge was in respect of the fraudulent utilization of $ 500(U.S. Dollars) for booking a Scooter given by one Shri T.K.Swain, borrower for depositing in his old loan account. He submitted a written statement of defence denying the allegation. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegation. After conducting enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 28.06.1988 vide Annexure -4 holding that the charge was proved. While the matter stood thus, another proceeding was initiated against him for lapses while he was working as Branch Manager at G.Udayagiri A.D.B. Branch from 1981 -84. As would be evident from the articles of charges vide Annexure -5, he was negligent in sanctioning loans under different Government sponsored schemes, failed to ensure proper documentation, disbursed lesser amounts than the sanctioned limits to the beneficiaries and utilised the balance amounts unauthorizedly for himself. The second charge was, he had acquired immovable properties without prior permission or subsequent intimation to the competent authority. The detailed statement of imputations of misconduct in support of articles of charge framed against the petitioner were issued along with the memorandum dated 27.07.1988 vide Annexure -5. He submitted a written statement of defence controverting the allegations. The same Enquiry Officer, who was appointed earlier to conduct the enquiry in respect of the first disciplinary proceeding, was also appointed as Enquiry Officer in the subsequent disciplinary proceeding. After completion of enquiry, he submitted the report on 21.08.1989 holding that the imputation nos. (i), (iii) and (v) had been proved and imputation nos. (ii), (iv) and (vi) had not been proved. But then, the disciplinary authority passed a composite order in respect of both the charges accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the penalty of "reduction of Basic Pay by five stages" on 14.02.1990 vide Annexure -9. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Deputy Managing Director and Appellate Authority, but then, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 3.10.1991 vide Annexure -11.

(3.) THE further case of the opposite parties is that the petitioner was the member of the purchase committee and had failed to account for the balance amount of cost of Rs.375/ - which was neither credited to the borrower's loan account nor in his SB A/C. The Enquiry Officer had considered the charge that the petitioner had misutilised a sum of Rs.375/ -. Further the Disciplinary Authority after careful analysis of the evidence on record and findings of the Enquiry Officer had passed the said order of penalty. The Appellate Authority was not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment as none of the contentions raised by the petitioner were found valid and acceptable.