LALCHHUANAWMI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N.Sailo, senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T.Azyu, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.s. Sharma, senior counsel for the State Bank of India assisted by Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, counsel for all the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that in the year 1983 petitioner was appointed as Probationary Officer with the respondent No.1 and after completion of probation period of two years, he was posted in different branches within the circle in different capacity. In August 2005, petitioner was serving as Branch Manager, SBI at Tawipui South Branch. Petitioner being the only officer posted there was entrusted with all responsibilities of the branch including banking business, deposit mobilization, sanction of loans, pre sanction & post sanction inspection and survey of the borrower units, field visit, recovery of advances etc. On 10-12-2005, respondent No.4 placed the writ petitioner under suspension for the alleged charge of absconding from the branch for the period from 13.12.2005 to 16.12.2005 and also for shortage of cash at the branch in the cash balance. Having been suspended, petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.4 denying all the charges leveled against him contending inter alia that during the period, there was power failure in the branch and accordingly the master system of the branch could not function during the period and as such up to date accounts could not be made for which skeleton services was provided manually to meet the necessity of the customers. The authority concerned declined to accept such explanation of the petitioner. Rather, on 11.8.2006, the petitioner was served a memorandum of charge along with articles of charges for the purpose of holding a departmental inquiry. Writ petitioner replied to the charges denying the same. However, the respondent authority refusing to accept the explanation preferred to hold the departmental enquiry against the petitioner on charges which are stated as under :

(3.) Thereafter the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report dated 6.2.2007 and the copy of which was furnished to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.3.2007. The inquiry report dated 6.2.2007 is to the effect that the Allegation Nos. 1, 4 & 5 stood proved against the petitioner and Allegation Nos. 2 & 3 were not proved against the petitioner.