STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.2.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8929 of 2003. The respondent is the petitioner being an employee of State Bank of India. A punishment of reduction in basic pay of the petitioner-respondent herein by three stages for three years was imposed on the ground that charge no. 2 was held to be proved by the enquiry officer. The learned Single Judge has held that the Bank was imposing punishment upon the petitioner-respondent herein only on the background that the charges which were brought against him did not match to the level of due diligence of the superior authorities, but the same cannot be said to be so serious in nature that he should be visited with various punishments. Holding so the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to the Bank to impose any other punishment in their own wisdom which should be commensurate with the charge and the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer.

(2.) The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank has contended before this Court that charge no.2 deals with opening of duplicate ledger which would indicate that there was a fraud to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the Enquiry Officer held charge no. 2 to be proved. Learned Single Judge has also accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer which would itself amount to be a major offence. Hence, action of the Bank in imposing the punishment of reduction of pay in three stages ought not to have been set aside by the learned Single Judge and the matter would not have been remanded to the Bank.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has tried to convince this Court staling that it is not the respondent who is responsible for the fraud of Rs. 1,00,000/- but there is some other person who was defaulter. Hence the findings of the learned Single Judge with regard to the remand as also imposing lesser punishment need not be interferred with.