ARJUNA CHARAN MISHRA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Satkosia Branch in the district of Mayurbhanj, by way of this writ application, seek to quash the orders dated 17.08.1988 passed by opposite party no.1-Chief General Manager, State Bank of India (disciplinary authority) in Annexue-7; dated 11.06.1990 passed by the appellate authority- opposite party no.5 in Annexure-9; and dated 20.08.2001 passed by opposite party no.6-reviewing authority in Annexure-13 imposing and confirming the punishment inflicted on him in a departmental proceeding by violating the norms and procedures prescribed in the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, (for short 'Staff Rules') and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, i.e., non-compliance of the principle of natural justice.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner, while working as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Satkosia Branch in the district of Mayurbhanj, was served with a memorandum of charges under Rule 50(1)(i) of the Staff Rules on 28.05.1986 to the following effect:

(3.) Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority, as referred to above, cannot sustain in the eye of law, as the same have been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that during process of enquiry, when the petitioner asked for supply of certain documents, the same were not supplied to him and the inquiring officer submitted his report with the finding that on the basis of the materials placed before him he found the petitioner guilty of charges, as mentioned hereinbefore, and thereby adequate opportunity of hearing has not been given to him. It is further contended, when the inquiring officer found that charge no.5 was partially proved, the disciplinary authority held that the charge no.5 was fully proved, but, however, without endorsing any ground for such disagreement with the finding of the inquiring officer, thereby, the order so passed cannot sustain in the eye of law.