KESHWAR MANJHI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was put to certain charges and he faced a departmental enquiry. In the departmental enquiry the enquiry officer observed that four charges were partly proved while the 5th charge was fully proved. He referred the matter to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority thereafter issued a notice to the petitioner contained in Annexure -3 dated 22.2.2002 to the petitioner recording its disagreement with the findings of the enquiry authority in respect of the allegation no. 1, 2, 3(a)(i), 3(a),(ii), 4 and 5. In the notice it was informed to the petitioner that all the allegations in fact are proved and the disciplinary authority was of the opinion that in accordance with the findings punishment commensurate to the guilt should be awarded. It was observed that if the petitioner intend to make any submission/representation on the finding of the enquiry as well as the points of disagreement enumerated in the said notice, he may do so within 15 days of receipt of the letter. Annexure -3 further states that no extension of time will be granted to the petitioner and in case the disciplinary authority does not receive the submissions within the stipulated period, it would be presumed that he has no submissions to offer and the disciplinary authority/appointing authority shall take the decision as he may deem fit.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY beyond this notice no further notice was given to the petitioner. Even after recording the disagreement and recording the final findings no notice showing proposed punishment was given to the petitioner nor he was informed that disciplinary authority was of the opinion that the disciplinary authority may refer the matter to the appointing authority as in the opinion of the disciplinary authority a penalty/major penalty specified in clause (e), (f), (g) or (h) of Rule 67 deserves to be awarded.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that a fair perusal of Rule 68(3)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) would make it clear that if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that a major penalty is to be imposed upon the delinquent officer then it would submit its recommendations regarding the penalty and, though the Rule does not prescribe, the appointing authority must issue a notice to the petitioner, give him the opportunity of hearing and after considering the case should pass final orders and impose penalty.