STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. PARTHA PRADEEP DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.12.93 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 745/93, thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 12.6.89 (Annexure-7) imposing penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages and the appellate order dated 21.12.90 (Annexure-9) passed by the appellate authority maintaining the aforesaid order, and further declaring that the writ petitioner respondent was entitled to get benefit of recommendation made by the DPC held on 1984 for his promotion to the next higher post. Aggrieved by the same, the employer Bank has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Few basic facts may now be noted. The writ petitioner-respondent filed the writ petition for quashing the departmental proceedings along with the punishment as noted above. There were five charges levelled against the writ petitioner-respondent. Out of them Charge Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were [held to have been proved while other two were not proved. The first allegation as contained in the charge was -

(3.) With the above allegations held as proved, learned counsel Mr. B.K. Sharma appearing for the appellant Bank, assailing the impugned JUDGMENT & ORDER as passed by the learned Single Judge, has raised the following points (i) that the learned Single Judge should not have gone into the appreciation of evidence and arrived at a finding other than the one recorded by the Enquiry Officer, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court was not sitting in appeal; (ii) that even while appreciating the evidence, it was not the domain of the learned Single Judge. Even the appreciation is distorted one, as in the case of Smti. Santi Shinte to whom the writ petitioner-respondent as Manager of the Imphal Branch of the Bank show undue favour and it was only after issuance of the first charge, almost 6 years thereafter, that the loan unauthorisedly and illegally granted to her was attempted to be recovered by the wriit petitioner - respondent; (iii) that on reprisal of evidence it was not open to the learned Single Judge to reverse the finding on Charge No,5 as recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Even while citing the law as enunciated by the Apex Court in AIR 1989 SC 1185, the learned Single Judge was wrong in re-appreciating the evidence; and (iv) the direction made by the learned Single Judge as records opening of "the sealed cover in respect of the DPC held in 1984 and in the event the writ petitioner was promoted, to grant him all consequential benefits and promotion to the higher post over looking the fact that a long time has since then elapsed. The real difficulties arising in implementation of such orders has not at all been taken into account.