REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

STATE BANK OF PATIALA Appellant

V/S

RAM GOPAL GUPTA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MAHENDRA KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
BANARSI LAL V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
STATE BANK OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. V. VEERANA [REFERRED]
STATE BANK OF INDIA V. B.R. VAID [REFERRED]
J.C. MEHTA V. POST GRADUATE MEDICAL INSTITUTE [REFERRED]
SUKHTEJ SINGH SIDHU V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
BHAGAT RAJA IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. UNION OF INDIA IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED]
NARAYAN MISRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]
MAHABIR PRASAD SANTOSH KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA BISWAROOP CHATTERJEE ACHINTA KUMAR BISWAS NABENDU BOSE LAXMI NARAYAN VS. TULSIRAM PATEL:SADANAND JHA:G P KOUSHAL:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
BRIJ NANDAN KANSAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED]
STATE BANK OF INDIA BHOPAL VS. S S KOSHAL [REFERRED]
RAM KISHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
S.C. GIROTRA VS. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK (U.C.O. BANK) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a departmental enquiry, where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, exonerating the person charged, is such person, on this account, entitled to notice of it, even if the relevant rules under which the enquiry is being held, do not provide for it A conflict of judicial precedents pertaining to this matter emerged during the hearing of this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff-Ram Gopal Gupta was working as Assistant Accountant with the State Bank of Patiala when on August 28, 1979, a charge-sheet was served upon him. In the enquiry that followed, he was exonerated of all the charges, but the'disciplinary authority, by its order of April 26, 1983 took a contrary view from that of the Enquiry Officer and held him guilty of the charges framed and proceeded thereafter to impose the punishment of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect. It is this order that the plaintiff ought to challenge in the present suit.

(3.) Admittedly, the plaintiff is governed by the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations 1979, Regulation 68(3)(ii) which is relevant here, reads as under:-

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. RAM GOPAL GUPTA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address