STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. NANI GOPAL PALIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole respondent/writ petitioner while posted as the Branch Manager, Manja Tin Ali Branch of State Bank of India was proceeded against departmentally on charge of having committed irregularities in sanctioning of loans under the Integrated Rural Proggramme (IRDP) and Direct Agricultural Cash Credit Loans under Central Government Scheme, as a result of which the appellant bank was exposed to a loss of Rs.4,40,836.00. The solitary charge was subdivided into 5 (five) sets of allegations i.e. Allegation Nos. I to V. On completion of the departmental enquiry, the Inquiry Officer found that the charges under Allegation Nos. I, II, IV and V were not proved and in respect of Allegation No. III, the same was partially proved. An additional charge, which was not part of the charge-memo, was taken into account by the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 26.03.2001. The said additional charge was an addition to the Allegation No. 1 and was held to be proved. On the findings of the Inquiry Officer which were favourable to the sole respondent/writ petitioner, a note of disagreement was expressed by the disciplinary authority, followed by his own conclusion. The sole respondent/ writ petitioner was asked to make his response, which was accordingly done. The views of the disciplinary authority together with the Inquiry Report were then placed before the General Manager. By order dated 10.11.2003, the appointing authority while concurring with the views of the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of

(2.) The primary ground of challenge was that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority could not have reversed/disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, those which were answered in favour of the delinquent, without assigning reasons for disagreement. On this aspect the learned Single Judge held that the failure to disclose any reason amounted to an illegal procedure being followed. The same was also contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.P. Malhotra v. Punjab National Bank, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 251 and in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84. As regards the adverse findings on the additional charge, the learned Single Judge held that since it was not part of the charge- memo, the same could not have been made the basis of action taken against the delinquent. Observation was also made on the disproportionality of the penalty. The writ petition was allowed, primarily for ignoring the law required to be followed while disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, by setting aside the order of penalty as well as the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Review Committee. Direction was made to give all service benefits by considering that the sole respondent/writ petitioner stood exonerated on all counts. While making the said direction the learned Single Judge took notice of the fact that the sole respondent/writ petitioner had retired from service as Assistant Manager on 31.12010. Aggrieved, the present appeal is laid by the Bank.

(3.) We have heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. T. N. Srinivasan and Mr. N. Baruah learned counsel representing sole respondent/ writ petitioner.