SATYENDRAKUMARGHOSH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, an Officer of the State Bank of India has impugned the order dated 12-9-1992 passed by respondent No. 2, Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Patna, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as a measure of punishment, while agreeing with the opinion of the disciplinary authority and the report of the enquiry officer. The petitioner has also impugned the appellate order rejecting his appeal, as communicated to him by letter of the General Manager (Operations) dated 14-4-1993.

(2.) Two main submissions have been urged by Counsel in support of the writ petition by the petitioner. He firstly contends that even on the basis of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, and accepted by the disciplinary authority and the appointing authority, no case of misconduct has been made out Secondly it is submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the appointing authority, and also the appellate authority, have taken into account the punishments inflicated on the petitioner in the past without the same having formed part of the charges levelled against the petitioner. They have, therefore, acted on the basis of extraneous consideration in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner on attaining the age of 50 years was granted extension of service till he attained the age of 55 years i. e. till 1st January, 1994. This was without prejudice to the departmental proceeding initiated against him.