UDAY SHANKARVARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY the petitioner was chargesheeted on as many as eight charges. The enquiry officer found that charge no. 2 and 4 were partially proved while the other charges were fully proved. After receiving the report from the enquiry officer a notice was given to the petitioner to submit his say in the matter. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, however, vide Annexure -3, a final order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 2nd November, 1998. In the final order the disciplinary authority has observed that though the enquiry officer has found that the charge no.2 and 4 were partially proved but in the opinion of the disciplinary authority the charge no.2 was fully proved. Giving the reasons for its disagreement he proceeded further in the matter and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter the matter was taken up in the appeal, the appellate forum simply said that the dismissal from service would be treated as removal from service. Thereafter the matter was agitated before the Review Committee but as the review proved futile the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that the principles of natural justice can not be defined as a straight jacket formula and the principles would change looking to the nature of the dispute. According to him even if the finding recorded on charge no.2 is taken to be partially proved then too the decision of the disciplinary authority would have been the same. He also submitted that the petitioner was given proper opportunity at every stage and step and if he has not exploited the same right in time he can not be allowed to raise this dispute in the writ Court.