SHEKHAR RANJAN GUPTA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was an officer in JMGS-1 and posted as Assistant Manager of respondent bank, was placed under suspension vide order dated 6. 11. 2008 and thereafter, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by issuing the charge memo dated 1. 9. 2003 by the Deputy General Manager/disciplinary authority levelling the charge of misappropriation of customers money, passing of instruments for payments beyond the power vested on him and thereby failing to discharge his duties with utmost sincerity, integrity, devotion, diligence and failure to protect the interest of the bank, based on four allegations, asking him to show cause as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him under the provisions of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (in short, the Rules) and to file the written statement of defence. The charges and allegations having been denied by the petitioner and the disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner decided to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him and accordingly, an enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted the proceeding against the petitioner on the charges levelled against him. The enquiry officer on completion of the proceeding submitted his report with the finding that while the allegation Nos. 2, 3 and 4 levelled against the petitioner are proved, the allegation No. 1 against the petitioner has not been proved. The said enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide communication dated 8. 2. 2002 asking him to submit his representation and make submission within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same, against the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in the report, pursuant to which the representation dated 18. 3. 2002 was filed by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority thereafter vide order dated 19. 8. 2002 imposed the penalty of dismissal from service in terms of Rule 67 (j) of the Rules. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner on 29. 2. 2002 was, however, dismissed by the appellate authority on 20. 5. 2003. Hence the present writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. S. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

(3.) MR. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained in law as the same has been passed on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, pursuant to an enquiry conducted by him in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine 3 material witnesses examined by the management in support of the charges levelled against him, particularly in respect of the allegation Nos. 2, 3 and 4 which were found to be proved by the enquiry officer. According to Mr. Das, the petitioner on 14. 9. 01 i. e. the date fixed for examination of other witnesses of the management, having realized that out of emotion he declined to cross-examine the said management witnesses on 6. 9. 01, filed the application with prayer to recall those witnesses for cross-examination, which the enquiry officer ought to have allowed so as to give the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry conducted against him. The same having not been done, the petitioner has been prejudiced as the enquiry officer has recorded the finding that allegation Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are proved on the basis of the evidence of the said 3 witnesses examined by the management, submits the learned senior counsel.