DILIP KUMAR NAIK Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India, has assailed in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the order dated March 13, 1992 of the disciplinary authority i. e. the Assistant General Manager, Region III, State Bank of India (opposite party No. 3) dismissing him from service, copy of which is Annexure-7 as also the appellate order of the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India (opposite party No. 2) confirming the order of the disciplinary authority (Annexure-11 ).

(2.) THE petitioner Dilip Kumar Naik having been appointed as Cashiercum-Clerk after being selected in the competitive examination from the Scheduled Caste quota, as per Annexure-1, joined service. While he was serving as Cashier in the Agricultural Development Branch of the State Bank of India, G. Udayagiri in the district of Phulbani, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in the year 1986 in CRM/dac No. 352 alleging gross misconduct in securing appointment in the bank by making false declaration that he was member of the Scheduled Caste being 'pano' by caste. The charge-sheet dated August 18, 1986 is Annexure-2. As required, the petitioner submitted his explanation that his declaration as to caste was correct and that he changed over to Christianity much later on January 24, 1982. One Sri V Ram Das being appointed as Enquiry Officer, conducted the enquiry on January 10, 1990 and May 25, 1990. In course of the enquiry, the Presenting Officer produced three documents namely, letter No. 4121 dated December 12, 1985 received from the Officer-in-charge, General and Misc. Section, Collectorate, Phulbani addressed to the Regional Manager, Region- III, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar intimating that the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri conducted enquiry which revealed that Sri D. K. Naik professes Christianity; letter No. 4610 dated July 3, 1986 received from the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri by the Regional Manager, Region-Ill, Bhubaneswar intimating that Sri D. K. Naik, son of Rama Naik of village Badanaju, P. S. G. Udayagiri is a 'pano' and professes Christianity which does not belong to Scheduled Caste. It was, therefore, concluded in that letter that the certificate issued vide R. M. C. No. 691/77 could not be considered now as per the present verification report; and letter No. 1296 dated April 24, 1987 of the Additional District Magistrate, Phulbani addressed to R. M. III, S. B. I. , Bhubaneswar intimating that as per the enquiry conducted by the S. D. O. , Baliguda it was beyond all doubts that Sri Naik was 'pano' by caste and professes Christianity. On that basis, the Additional District Magistrate was of the view that Sri Naik did not belong to Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Caste certificate issued in his favour in M. C. Case No. 691/77 might be a misrepresentation of the fact. The delinquent petitioner, in support of his case, produced the caste certificate issued to him in M. C. Case No. 691/77 (Annexure-3) accompanied by the report of the Revenue Inspector, G. Udayagiri dated November 4, 1977 indicating that the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste, being 'pano' by caste according to the Constitution (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Lists Modification) 1958. He also filed letter No. 2422 dated May 25, 1990 issued by the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri to the Branch Manager stating that the petitioner was a member of the Scheduled Caste and was subsequently converted to the Christianity with effect from April 24, 1982 as stated by the local public and gentries and the father of Sukanda Catholic Church as also the certificate dated February 12, 1989 issued by Fr. Alexandere of Catholic Church, Sukanda, G. Udayagiri indicating that the petitioner was baptised on February 24, 1982.

(3.) ON a consideration of the aforesaid documents, the Enquiry Officer recorded the findings (i) that Sri Dilip Kumar Naik was a Hindu while applying for the certificate; (ii) that an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Authority who on being satisfied about the caste of the petitioner issued the certificate in his favour in 1977; (iii) that the petitioner applied for the bank service and having got the employment on October 9, 1980 i. e. after about three years of the issue of the certificate, the possibility of the petitioner's obtaining the certificate for the purpose of securing bank job is fully ruled out as after three years of the issue of the certificate he joined the service; (iv) that the petitioner was converted to Christianity on February 24, 1982 but did not intimate that fact to the Bank C. O. ; (v) that the Bank's reference and enquiries started in the year 1985 by which time Sri Naik had already professed Christianity; and (vi) that the letters of Government authorities merely say that Sri Naik professes Christianity. With such findings, the Enquiry Officer came to hold that the petitioner was Hindu at the time of taking employment in the bank and he was a member of the Scheduled Caste and as such, he could not be guilty of the charge levelled against him. The report of the Enquiry Officer is attached to the Writ Petition as Annexure 4 and when the same was placed before the disciplinary authority (opposite party No. 3) he was of the view that the charge of gross misconduct had been duly proved and accordingly, he issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he would not be dismissed from service. A copy of the notice is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-5. The notice does not indicate that any other document not referred to by the Enquiry Officer was taken into consideration by him and no reason has been assigned therein as to why he took a decision contrary to that of the Enquiry Officer. After the petitioner showed his cause as per Annexure-6 the impugned order as per Annexure-7 dismissing the petitioner from service was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy General Manager (opposite party No. 2) against the order of dismissal and the copy of his memorandum of appeal is Annexure-8 which was followed by the other impugned order, Annexure-11 dismissing the appeal merely observing that on perusal of the relevant papers and after going through the enquiry report and the written submission of the petitioner, it was found that there was no valid and convincing reason justifying a lighter punishment.