LAKSHMAN KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated March 21, 1997 (Annexure 1), March, 24, 1998 (Annexure 2) and June 16, 1999 (Annexure 3) passed by the appointing authority, the appellate authority and the reviewing authority, namely, the General Manager (Operation). The Deputy Managing Director and C.D.O. Central Office and the Reviewing Committee (II) of the State Bank of India, respondents No. 3, 5 and 6 respectively, and thus, has prayed for quashing of the said orders and for direction to the respondents to give consequential benefits at the rate of 18% per annum and cost of the proceeding.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk in the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') on March 27, 1972 and was promoted on March 6, 1990 as an Officer in Middle Management Grade II. vide order passed by the Chief General Manager with effect from August 1, 1988, as contained in Annexure 4. While the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager at Mahuadanr, an explanation was called for, vide letter dated December 24, 1992, contained in Annexure 5, with respect to the charge of misappropriation. The petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation on December 29, 1992. Thereafter on January 12, 1993, he was placed under suspension and attached to Daltonganj Branch for the purpose of drawing subsistence allowance, vide Annexure 6. The petitioner filed writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 810 of 1993 challenging the said order of suspension, which was later withdrawn on March 5, 1993. The petitioner was served with articles of charges, vide letter dated July 4, 1994, contained in Annexure 7. It is alleged that he was not served with the statement of allegations along with the said charges as required under the rules. However, he filed show cause on August 18, 1994, contained in Annexure 8, denying allegation and requesting not to proceed against him and exonerate him of the charge on review.

(3.) On September 26, 1994 an inquiry officer was appointed and the inquiry was concluded on December 29, 1995. The inquiry officer submitted his report on May 14, 1996, as contained in Annexure 15. The inquiry officer found Charge/allegation No. 1 (a), l(b) and 1(c) as not proved, Charge/allegation No. 2 was found partially proved, Charge/allegation No. 3 was found to be substantiated and Charge/allegation No. 4 was partially proved. The disciplinary authority vide letter dated July 10, 1996 contained in Annexure 14, while disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer in respect of Allegation No. 1(b), 2 and 4, forwarded a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner requiring him that if he so desires he may make any representation or submission within 15 days of the receipt of the said letter and if no submissions are received, the disciplinary authority/appointing authority would proceed 1 to take such action on the report as deemed fit.