ANIL KUMAR DOBHAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the order dated 30.9.1989 passed by the Chief General Manager, (Appointing Authority), removing the Petitioner from service, (Annexure PG to the petition), order dated 1.4.1990 passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the service appeal preferred by the Petitioner (Annexure PJ to the petition) and orders dated 5.12.1991 and 11.12.1998( ) passed by Reviewing Committee, dismissing review petitions of the Petitioner (Annexure PL and PN to the petition).

(2.) Case of the Petitioner, as made out in the amended petition, is that he was appointed as a Clerk in the Respondent bank on and with effect from 3.6.1972 as per Annexure PA. He was served with Office Order dated 17.9.1987 (Annexure PB) by Respondent No. 2, his Disciplinary Authority, placing the Petitioner under suspension for the following acts of grave misconduct:

(3.) The Petitioner was then served with a charge sheet dated 19.8.1988 under four heads as per the aforesaid acts, requiring the Petitioner to submit his written statement to the charge sheet within 15 days. The Petitioner submitted the written statement dated 17.9.1988 (Annexure PD). The Disciplinary Authority found the written statement submitted by the Petitioner unsatisfactory and unacceptable and a departmental inquiry was initiated against the Petitioner vide order dated 13.10.1988 (Annexure PE). On completion of the departmental proceedings, the inquiry officer submitted the report (Annexure PF) whereby charge No. 1 was held proved, charges Nos. 2 and 4 were held partly proved and charge No. 3 was held not proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from bank service on the Petitioner in terms of Rule 49(g) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure PH) against the penalty imposed upon him and also submitted a supplementary appeal (Annexure PI) to the Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent No. 3. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner was rejected by Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 1.9.1990 (Annexure PJ). The Petitioner then preferred a Review Petition under Rule 51 of the Rules(Annexure PK) which was rejected by the Reviewing Committee on 5.12.1991 vide (Annexure PL). It is further case of the Petitioner that after his removal from service and rejection of appeals /review petitions, he went in depression, lost his father, his mother fell ill and his wife is also ill and he had no means to approach this Court for redressal of the grievances, therefore, the delay caused in filing the present petition is bona fide and in the meanwhile, no rights of third party have intervened. It is further averred that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 15.10.1998, the Petitioner made a detailed representation (Annexure PM) to the concerned authorities and he was legitimately expecting that such a representation would be considered sympathetically by such authorities and the penalty of removal would be reduced to an appropriate punishment. However, such a representation was rejected by the Reviewing Committee on 30.11.1998 as conveyed to the Petitioner vide letter dated 11.12.1998 (Annexure PN).