C M PRASAD Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner No. 1. a Clerk cum-Casbicr, working in the State Bank of India, Munger Branch (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') and the' Petitioner No. 2 is the State Bank of India Employees' Union, Bihar Branch and its General Secretary is the Petitioner No. 3. Respondent No. 1 is the State Bank of India, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are Us Officers and Respondent No. 5 is the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India, New Delhi.

(2.) The petitioners have prayed that the directions issued by the Respondent No. 5, the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, contained in the telegram dated 28-12-1993 (Annexure-5) directing the Petitioner No. 1 to participate in the departmental proceedings failing which it would proceed expart as well as the order dated 21-1-1994 (Annexure-7) directing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry being taken/conducted by the Respondent No. 5 in respect of the statement of charges contained in the charge-sheet dated 15-1-1992 (Annexure-1) the quashed, and it has been prayed that the Respondent No. 5 be restrained from taking/conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner No 1, who is an Award Staff, and for a declaration that the Respondent No. 5, the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries can only conduct enquiries against the Middle Management Level- Ill Officers and Officers of higher rank of the Bank and not against the Award Staff of the Bank and for a direction that the disciplinary proceedings against an Award Staff is to be conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Sastry Award as retained by Desai Award, according to which only the Officers of the Bank can be deputed by the Disciplinary Authority to function as an Enquiry Officer.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner No. 1 is that he was working as Clerk-cum-cashier at the Munger Branch of the Bank when he received a letter dated 15-1-1992 (Annexure-1) from the Assistant General Manager, the Respondent No 3, who is the Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner No 1 which contained the statement of charges calling upon the Petitioner No. 1 in terms of Rule 521 ,(4), (j) of the Sastry Award as retained by Desai Award to submit his written statement of defence, if any, within fifteen days of the receipt of the letter Written statement of defence dated 29-1-1992 (Annexure-2) was submitted by the Petitioner No 1 before the Disciplinary Authority, who by the letter dated 23-11-1992 (Annexure-3) informed the Petitioner No. 1 that his explanation had not been found satisfactory and, therefore, an enquiry had been ordered to be conducted against the Petitioner No. 1 by Sri J D. Verma, the Comissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, Respondent No. 5 and Sri I. Fadili, Manager (Vigilance) of the Bank's local Head Office, Patna was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Petitioner No. 1 by bis letter dated 6-1-1993 (Annexure-4) informed the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner being an Award Staff, disciplinary proceedings can only be initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Awards and Bipartite Agreements Settlements and there was no rule or any provision in the said Awards and Settlements enabling the Disciplinary Authority to appoint the Commissioner of Departmental an outsider, who is not an Officer of the Bank to function as the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings against an Award Staff of the Bank. Soon thereafter, telegraphic communication was received on 28-12-1993, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 from the Respondent No 5, the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries intimating that the enquiry against Petitioner No. i is to commenced on 21-1-1994 at New Delhi advising the petitioner No. 1 to appear that on date. Petitioner No. 1 by his registered letter dated 8-1-1994 (Aanexure-6) informed the Respondent No. 5 that he was a clerical employee posted in the Munger Branch of the Bank and as such the enquiry is to be held in terms of Rule 52/70 of the State Bank of India (Supervisory/Officers Staff) Service Rules, which provides that the Bank shall consult the Central Vigilance Commission wherever necessary, in respect of all disciplinary cases, having vigilance angle, and it was pointed out that such consultation was confined only to those vigilance cases in which the Middle Management Grade-Ill Officers or Officers of higher rank drawing a minimum pay not less than Rs. 1800/-per mensem and as regards the disciplinary proceedings and the procedure therefore in so far as the Petitioner No, 1 is concerned is governed by Clauses 520 and 521 of Sastry Award as modifed by Desai Award and the three Bipartite Settlements none of which provides for referring the discipli nary cases of Award Staff to the Central Vigilancs Commission, and in view of Clause-521 (12) of the Sastry Award, it is only the Disciplicncy Authority, who is competent to appoint another Officer of the Bank as an Enquiry Officer and further that in view of the Departmental Enquiries (Pnforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 the Petitioner No 1 cannot be forced/coerced to attend/participate in the enquiry as he was not being called as a witness, and in the circumstances the Petitioner No. 1 expressed his inability. A copy of the ietter addressed to the Respondent No. 5 was also sent to the concerned, Officers of the Bank.