PAZAWNA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS involved though not similar in the above two writ petitions, same are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment in view of involvement of similar questions of law. In the W. P. (C) No. 49 of 2008, the writ petitioner has challenged his dismissal order dated 11. 7. 2007 passed by respondent No. 3 while in writ petition No. 46 of 2008, the order reducing in rank of the writ petitioner dated 17. 3. 2007 passed by the respondent No. 3, has been put in challenge.

(2.) FOR better appreciation and unders-tanding the appeals this Court proposes to place the facts involved in each case at this stage as under : w. P. (C) No. 46 of 2008 writ petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 1 in the year 1975 and was discharging his duties in different capacities in various branches within the jurisdiction of Northeast Circle. The writ petitioner while was serving as Branch Manager SBI, Darlawn Branch in the year 1975 and Lawngtlai Branch from 13. 5. 1999 to 31. 12. 2002, for misconduct committed during that period, respondent No. 4 with a view to hold a departmental inquiry, on 29. 10. 2004 served 7 (seven) numbers of allegations asking show cause reply from the writ petitioner on the following allegations :

(3.) WP (C) No. 49 of 2008 : 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 thereat was entrusted with all responsibilities of the branch including banking business, deposit mobilization, sanction of loans, pre-sanction and post sanction inspection and survey of the borrower units, field visit, recovery of advances etc. etc. On 19. 12. 2005 respondent No. 4 placed the writ petitioner under suspension, on 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 cash balance. Having been suspended, petitioner submitted an application to respondent No. 4 denying all the charges levelled 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 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 and asked for some copies of documents for further reply, however, the respondent authority refusing to accept the explanation preferred to hold the departmental inquiry against the alleged charges which can be stated as under :