RAKESH ROSHAN GUPTA Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the instant appeal against the judgment dtd. 23/2/2024 passed in CWJC no.1323 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ application. The appellant had filed the writ application praying for quashing the order of punishment dtd. 7/6/2019, whereby the punishment of reduction to the post of Award Staff fixing the basic pay as Rs.21,240.00 per month was imposed on the appellant with a further order that the period of suspension would be treated not on-duty. The appellant had also prayed for quashing the appellate order dtd. 20/11/2019.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that while the appellant was posted as the Assistant Branch Manager in the Munger Branch of the State Bank of India, an F.I.R. being Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case no.341 of 2013 was registered against him on 9/7/2013 for offence under Sec. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. On investigation final form was submitted and the same was accepted by the learned Court below on 24/2/2016. With the acceptance of the final form, the criminal case stood closed. The petitioner was proceeded against in a disciplinary proceeding in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 ('the Rules of 1992' in short) on the following charges :-

(3.) The departmental proceeding started and the Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report dtd. 6/5/2014, the summary of the report being that the allegation no. 1 was not proved while allegation nos. 2 and 3 were found to be proved. The charges having been partly proved, the disciplinary authority along with the letter dtd. 12/5/2014 served a copy of the enquiry report on the appellant observing that they did not agree with the findings of the enquiring authority with respect to the allegation no.1. Observing that the disciplinary authority/appointing authority will take the final decision after examining the enquiry report, the appellant was given liberty to file his representation within a period seven days. The appellant submitted his reply on which the appointing authority by order contained in letter dtd. 6/2/2015 imposed the penalty of dismissal on the appellant.