STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SATYABRATA BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.2,95 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.3 767 of 1991 thereby quashing the dismissal order dated 17.1.87. Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent State Bank of India has filed this Appeal. Heard learned counsel Mr. M.A. Laskar, for the Appellant Bank and learned counsel Mr. J.M. Choudhury, for the Respondent Bank Employee. Few basic facts necessary for disposal of the Appeal now be noted. The Writ Petitioner, Respondent herein joined service in State Bank of India in the year 1962 and worked in different Branches of the Bank in the State of Assam. At the material time, he has been serving as Teller in the South Guwahati Branch of the Bank at Ulubari. By order dated 23rd April, 1985, Annexure-I, he was placed under suspension on the ground that he had committed gross irregularities at his Branch, which was followed by charge-sheet, Annexure-2 dated 21.3.1986. The gist of the allegations against the writ petitioner was that while he was working as Teller in the Bank he received money from the Bank customers from time to rime and has misappropriated the same amounting to Rs.8,000/- deposited by five different customers. Apart from violation of the Bank Rules and instructions, he has acted in the manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. A show-cause notice was issued to the charges, the writ petitioner in his reply to the charge sheet denied the allegations, at the same time also expressed regrets that it was an irony of fate that he became of victim of allegations. An enquiry was conducted, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition. The Assistant General Manager, Appellant No. 3 herein proposed penalty of dismissal vide show cause notice dated 5.11.1986. The writ petitioner submitted his reply on 4.12. 1986, Annexurs-5 praying for lesser punishment. His prayer was not accepted and he was discharged from service. Writ-petitioner preferred departmental appeal which was also rejected. He therefore, approached this Court with a petition which as already noted above has been allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, It is against this judgment and order that the present appeal has been preferred by the Bank.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following paints:

(3.) As can be seen from the impugned judgment, the line of reasonings adopted by the learned Single Judge, for quashing the Departmental Proceedings cannot be said to be tenable in law. The learned Single Judge fell to a palpable error of law by interfering the finding of facts arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority as can be gathered from the following passage extracted from the impugned order: