CH LAXMIKANTHAM Vs. CHAIRMAN STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has challenged the order of discharge from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority (O. P. No. 1) and confirmation of the same by the Appellate Authority (O. P. No. 3) and has prayed for quashment of the said orders under Annexures 25 and 28. She has also prayed for her reinstatement in service with all service benefits right from the date of her suspension on 1.2.1997.

(2.) THE background facts leading to the discharge of the petitioner from service and filing of this Writ Petition is narrated below. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the State Bank of India and her appointment was made on compassionate ground on 9.2.1985. In the first instance she was posted as a Clerk in the IDCO Tower Branch of the State Bank of India at Bhubaneswar and in May, 1992 she was transferred to Balasore. While holding office in the SBI, Main Branch, Balasore, she committed serious irregularities and gross misconduct in the month of January, 1997. The petitioner belongs to award staff and is governed by all India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) which is popularly known as Shastry Award and paragraph 512 of the Shastry Award prescribes the procedure relating to the disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalty and the said Shastry Award is binding on the parties in accordance with Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The serious irregularities and gross misconduct came to light and the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 1.2.1997 vide Annexure -4. Thereafter, by order dated 1.7.1997 (Annexure -5) she was called upon to submit her explanation to the allegation that she had deceptively managed to obtain three numbers of SB withdrawals from Smt. Satyabati Das for Rs. 95,000/ -, Rs. 75,000/ - and Rs. 73,000/ - aggregating to Rs. 2,43,000/ - drawn on her S.B. account No. 557211 and presented them for payment with an ulterior motive knowing fully well that the balance in the account was insufficient on the material date i.e. 22.1.1997. She was also called upon to explain the allegation that she had deceptively removed the relative S.B. Ledger sheet of the Account and three paid withdrawals in question purposefully with an intention to destroy the evidence and defraud the Bank. She was also called upon to explain about her unauthorizedly leaving the Branch after receiving payment of Rs. 2,43,000/ - on 22.1.1997 without obtaining prior permission from the appropriate authority and remaining absent since then from duty in an unauthorized manner without submitting any leave application, in violation of the rules of service conditions under which she was governed. She was further called upon to explain in the said Annexure -5 to the allegation that on the same day she had deposited Rs. 20,0065/ - towards liquidation of her cooperative loan account from out of the amount drawn by her practicing fraud.

(3.) THE copy of the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 5.5.1999 calling upon her to make any representation or submission within fifteen days from the receipt of the same and the petitioner preferred a representation on 22.5.1999 vide Annexure -20 and the disciplinary authority on 20.9.1999 issued second show cause tentatively deciding to inflict upon her the punishment of discharge from service in terms of paragraph 21(iv)(b) of the Sixth Bipartite Settlement dated 14.2.1995. The petitioner submitted her show cause on 9.12.1999 and the disciplinary authority after receipt of the same decided to afford personal hearing to the petitioner and fixed 17.12.1999 for the same and on the date fixed after making personal hearing the disciplinary authority passed final order on 6.1.2000 and the said final order is quoted below : She should be discharged from service' and 'the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty. The final order passed was communicated to the petitioner and after receipt of the same she filed an appeal memorandum before the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy General Manager, who after affording personal hearing to the petitioner confirmed the punishment of discharge from service inflicted by the disciplinary authority. After this final order of dismissal was passed the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the orders passed by the disciplinary as well as the Appellate Authorities discharging her from service.