CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from service. Brief facts are that the petitioner joined as a Cashier in the respondent-bank in 1957. On 19.5.1984, he was placed under suspension on account of some irregularities committed by him by granting advances to persons established outside the area of operation of his branch. Consequently, an FIR was registered against him and after trial he was convicted, vide judgment dated 23.4.1988 under Sections 420, 471, 120B of the IPC but was released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction before this Court. However, on the basis of conviction, the respondent-bank dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 29.11.1988. Vide order dated 24.3.1998, this Court set aside the order of conviction and remanded the matter back for fresh trial. Thereafter, the petitioner represented to the respondent bank for re-instatement and was reinstated on 27.11.1998. On the same day, the enquiry was revived and, he was dismissed from service, vide order of even date (Annexure P-12). Appeal and review petition filed against the dismissal order having been dismissed, vide orders Annexures P-14 and P-16 respectively, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) The precise grievance raised by the petitioner is that after his conviction was set aside, neither the inquiry report was sent to him for his comments alongwith the show cause notice nor the notice asking him to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal was ever served upon him. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, 1994 1 SCT 319 .

(3.) Counsel for the respondent has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically made the ruling in B. Karunakar's case prospective and in the present case, the incident occurred prior to the said decision.