BOA PENJI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned standing counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Nag, Learned Counsel, for Respondent Bank.

(2.) At the outset, I must say that the Learned Counsel for the parties, at the conclusion of oral arguments, assured me to provide with written arguments at Principal Seat during my holding of court thereat from 14.2.2011 to 18.2.2011, but till writing of this judgment, they have not submitted the same.

(3.) The relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the Petitioner at the relevant time, was serving as Deputy Head Cashier at Itanagar Branch of the State Bank of India. A charge sheet dated 5.3.2001 was served upon the Petitioner levelling certain allegations against him. He submitted reply on 31.3.2001 denying all the charges. The disciplinary authority found the reply unsatisfactory and decided to hold enquiry against him and appointed an Enquiry Officer on 23.10.2001 and also one Presenting Officer on 31.1.2003. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority but the same was not furnished to the Petitioner. However, he could gather that none of the allegations have been found proved and he was exonerated of charges. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 17.10.2003 directed to hold de novo enquiry against him on the same charges. At the same time, the Petitioner was transferred to Guwahati. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was originally registered as WP(C) No. 9143/2003 at the Principal Seat and renumbered as WP(C) No. 378(AP)/2003 on transfer at Itanagar Bench, challenging the legality and justification for holding a de novo enquiry. The said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 3.6.2005 with direction that the Bank shall complete the enquiry within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Against the said judgment and order, the Petitioner preferred a writ appeal, being WANo. 51(AP)/2006, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 26.4.2007 holding that the de novo enquiry was not (appropriate and directing the disciplinary authority to hold further enquiry by permitting the parties to adduce additional evidence, both oral and documentary, as may be relevant to prove or disprove the charges.