SAMARENDRA KISHORE ENDOW Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Following a disciplinary proceeding drawn against the petitioner, while he was serving as a Branch Manager of the respondent Bank, on as many charges as 5 (five) in number, the petitioner was found guilty of all the 5 charges by the inquiring officer, but the disciplinary authority did not, on perusal of the materials, agree with the finding of the inquiring officer on charge No. 4 and imposed, in consequence of the conclusions so reached, the penalty of removal of the petitioner from service. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the appellate authority. The petitioner then, approached this court by way of a writ petition and the same gave rise to Civil Rule No. 3 of 1986. By the judgment and order, dated 07-02-91, passed therein, the findings of guilt as well as the penalty imposed on the petitioner were quashed. The respondent Bank preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court and the same, on leave the being granted, was registered as CivilAppeal No. 392/94. By the judgment and order, dated 18-1-94, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the respondent Bank with the observation that the appellate authority shall consider whether any lesser punishment is not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case as indicated inCivilAppeal No. 392/94. The petitioner, then, submitted, on 18-3-94, an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the respondent No. 3. Upon considering the matter in the appeal, the appellate authority, vide its order, dated 10-5-94, rejected the appeal and maintained the penalty of removal from service on the ground that the same was justified and there was no ground for modifying the same. Aggrieved by the order, dated 10-5-94, aforementioned, the petitioner has, once again, approached this court with the help of the present application.

(2.) I have perused the materials on record. I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned Sr. counsel along with Mr. O.K. Biswas, learned Sr. Counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr: S. Deb, learned Sr. counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, dated 10-5-94, aforementioned dismissing the petitioner's appeal, Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel, has submitted that the respondent No. 3 had acted with great impropriety in dismissing the appeal and in not modifying the penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner to some other reasonable and justifiable penalty, though the order in Civil Appeal No. 329/94 shows, contends Mr. Das, that the Apex Court was of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, punishment other than the punishment of removal from service needed to be imposed on the petitioner. The respondent No. 3, according to Mr. Das, ignored the observations so made by the Apex Court. The impugned order, therefore, contends Mr. Das, deserves to be interfered with and set aside.