BIMAL SAHIS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as Deputy Manager, State Bank of India at Regional Business Office, Bhawanipatna, was asked to show cause that during the period from 13.07.2005 to 11.05.2007, when he was working as a Branch Manager at Charbahal Branch, he had committed certain irregularities in sanction and disbursement of 'P' segment loan by deviating the norms of the Bank. Pursuant thereto, he submitted his reply on 13.05.2008 denying the allegations and justified his action by stating that he had not deviated any of the norms of the Bank in the matter of disbursement of such loan. A memorandum of charge dated 24.10.2008 was served on the petitioner with the articles of charges that, while discharging the duty as Branch Manager at Charbahal Branch during the period from 13.07.2005 to 11.05.2007, he had not discharged his duties with utmost devotion, diligence, honesty & integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer. On receipt of such memorandum of charge, the petitioner submitted written statement of defence denying each of the allegations levelled against him and also denied all the 19 imputations of alleged misconduct specifically. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiring officer, namely, the Deputy General Manager (O & C), who caused an enquiry and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 05.02.2010, wherein he found that the charge no. 15(a) was not proved and some other charges like charge nos. 3, 8, 9(i), 9(iii), 9(iv), 10 and 11 were partly proved and so far as other charges are concerned, i.e. charge nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9(ii), 12, 13 and 15(b) were proved. The said enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner to give his reply. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his written submission in respect of all the charges as was found by the inquiring officer. But the disciplinary authority on 19.04.2010 confirmed the finding of the inquiring officer except imputation no. 15(b), wherein the disciplinary authority differed with the inquiring officer and held that the allegation no. 15(b) was not proved. So far as other allegations are concerned, the disciplinary authority not only accepted the finding of the inquiring officer but also recommended for punishment. Accordingly, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 67(h) and Rule 68(3)(iii) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 ( for short the "Rules, 1992"), a major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner by order dated 19.04.2010. Against the imposition of major penalty by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority, by order dated 15.04.2011, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of penalty of compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority, hence this application.

(2.) Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner specifically urged that, while conducting enquiry, the inquiring officer had not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, inasmuch as, while recording the finding in respect of imputation no.3, the inquiring officer held erroneously that the remarks of the Bank's Officer had not been complied with, i.e., not obtaining no objection certificate from the sisters and mother of the borrower at the time of creation of equitable mortgage. So far as imputation no.2 is concerned, in absence of any material produced to show that the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally disbursed housing loan, it is stated that the charge was proved. Similarly, the irregularities in the process of enquiry had been pointed out, but neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority had given any opportunity to the petitioner, and as such, in absence of any 2nd show cause, the imposition of major penalty like compulsory retirement cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is specifically urged that as per Rule 68(3)(iii) of the Rules, 1992 no opportunity of hearing was given by the appointing authority while imposing the major penalty against the petitioner. Relying upon the judgment of the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3233 of 2005 (State Bank of India and Ors. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty and Anr) disposed of on 30.07.2008, he further stated that referring to the said judgment the State Bank of India issued necessary circular on 21.10.2010, wherein it was stated that the judgment of the apex Court has to be adhered to with letter and spirit. It is further case of the petitioner that as per Rule 68(3)(iii) of the Rules, 1992, it is the duty of the appointing authority to give opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer, while imposing major penalty on the basis of the report submitted by the disciplinary authority. It is further contended, on the basis of the information received under Right to Information Act, that no record/document is available before this Court regarding personal hearing before imposing major penalty. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that no opportunity whatsoever had been given to the petitioner by the appointing authority as required under Rule 68(3)(iii) of the Rules, 1992, while imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Thereby, due to non-compliance of principle of natural justice, the order of the disciplinary authority imposing major penalty and the order of the appellate authority confirming the same cannot sustain and are liable to be quashed.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. P.V. Balkrishna, learned counsel for the State Bank of India stoutly denied the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that action was taken in compliance of the provisions of the service rules governing the field. As such, the grievance of the petitioner was considered by the disciplinary authority, as well as by the appellate authority, and on the basis of the articles of charges, statement of imputations of misconduct, defence statement of the official, the records of enquiry, finding of inquiring authority, official statement on the finding of the inquiring authority and views/comments of the disciplinary authority in their entirety the penalty of "compulsory retirement from bank's service" in terms of Rule 67(h) of the Rules, 1992 was imposed against the petitioner. With regard to circular dated 21.10.2010, he strenuously urged that the final order of punishment by appointing authority was passed on 19.04.2010, whereas the circular for personal hearing of supervising staff came on 21.10.2010. Therefore, at the time when the final order was passed, there were no such corresponding provisions. It is further urged that the petitioner has not exhausted all the remedies available to him under the statute. Against the order passed by the appellate authority, he could have filed review petition before the review committee, corporate centre within six months of the date of the final order of the appellate authority. The alternative remedy having not been availed, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. v. P.C. Chaturvedi and others, AIR 2006 SC 87, State of U.P. v. Ram Bachan Tripathi, (2005) 6 SCC 496 and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector, (2008) 12 SCC 30.