K PRUTVIRAJ SINGH Vs. DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) APPELLATE AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was subjected to disciplinary proceeding while serving as Field Officer in the State Bank of India, Purushottampur Branch, in the district of Ganjam has filed this application seeking to quash the enquiry report dated 25.08.1992 in Annexure-9 and the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 14.08.1993 imposing penalty of removal from service as per State Bank of India Officers Service Rules and confirmation thereof by the appellate authority vide order dated 23.05.1994 under Annexure-17 in terms of Rule 49(4) of the State Bank of India Supervising Staff (Service Rules) which corresponds to new Rules 67(9) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. The petitioner further seeks for a direction to re-instate him in service with full back wages and other service benefits.

(2.) The factual backdrop of the case in hand is that the petitioner while working as Field Officer allegations were leveled against him which led to service of memorandum along with charge-sheet and imputations dated 31.01.1990 containing the following allegations:

(3.) Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner while admitting the initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the alleged imputations has strenuously urged that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority pursuant to Annexure-15 for removal from service and confirmation thereof by the appellate authority vide Annexure-17 is outcome of non-application of mind inasmuch as for the self-same allegations if the C.B.I. authority could not trace out any evidence against the petitioner and submitted final form and on that basis the criminal case initiated against the petitioner bearing No. E.C. No.46(A) of 1989 has been closed, the Disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority should have taken into consideration those aspects and dropped the proceeding initiaited against the petitioner. He further urged that the enquiry which was conducted by the Enquiry Officer suffers from gross material irregularities inasmuch as the same is violative of principles of natural justice. Therefore, on the basis of such perfunctory enquiry, the imposition of penalty of removal by the Disciplinary Authority cannot sustain. The appellate authority also has not taken into consideration those material aspects while confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary authority. Therefore, both the orders passed by the Disdplinary Authority and the appellate authority on the basis of the perfunctory enquiry are to be set aside. To substantiate his contentions he has relied upon Minu Kumari & Anr v. State of Bihar & Ors, 2006 AIR(SC) 1937 G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2006 AIR(SC) 2129 and Sailendra Nath Mohanty v. Union of India & Ors., 2014 1 ILR(Cut) 1070.