SADASHIVAPANDEY JAINATHPRASADSINHA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been heard at length at the admission stage and after hearing the parties they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Sada Shiva Pandey is the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 676 of 1992. He has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12-7-1991 (Annexure-8) whereby the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the appellate order dated 25-10-1991 (Annexure-11) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The other reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are consequential. Similar reliefs have been prayed for by Jainath Prasad Sinha, petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 727 of 1992. In his case the disciplinary authority has inflicted punishment of reduction in the basic pay to the next lower stage for a period of one year. Since the facts are somewhat similar, I shall take the tacts from C. W. J. C. No. 676 of 1992.

(3.) The petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 676/92 is an employee of the State Bank of India. While he was working at Bihta Branch of the Bank a memorandum was issued to him on 7-8-1986 by the Regional Manager stating that the petitioner has committed several irregularities while officiating as Passing Officer in the Savings Bank Section in October and December 1981 at the Arrah Branch, and that he had passed three withdrawal forms paid across the teller counter without insisting for production of pass books with a view to verify them with the ledger. On account of such action the Bank had been defrauded. The particulars regarding the dates, account number: name of the persons and the-amount were also detailed in the memorandum. It was also alleged that while the petitioner was working as a Teller at the Arrah Branch in June and September 1985 he had made payments to two unauthorised persons He was, therefore, called upon to furnish his explanation. The petitioner requested his Branch Manager to grant leave etc. for going to Arrah to inspect and verify the documents to enable him to explain the matter. However, ultimately when the petitioner went to Arrah Branch of the Bank, he was not able to see the necessary documents, as he was informed that the documents bad been seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation, However, the petitioner furnish his explanation of 20th February, 1987 mentioning therein that since the matter related to events which took place long ago, it was very difficult for the petitioner to recollect as to what actually transpired. He, therefore, requested that he should be allowed to verify/peruse the vouchers and documents to enable him to give a reply. Subsequently, chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on 12-11-1987 calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him for the lapses indicated therein. The aforesaid chargesheet has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner addressed a representation to the Regional Manager on 2nd December, 1987, and stated that it was not possible to recollect the matter as it related to events which had taken place long ago. He, therefore, claimed that 14 documents mentioned by him may be made available to him for perusal. However, the documents asked for by the petitioner was not made available to him.