RPKARAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application is directed against the order dated 27.1.90 (annexure 20) passed by the Regional Manager, Region III, Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 3), by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment of dismissal from service and the order dated 15.2. 94 (annexure 22) passed by the Appellate Authority namely, Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 2) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the aforementioned decision of the Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) It appears that while the petitioner was working in Mohammadpur branch of the Bank he was placed under suspension on 23.11.83. The petitioner was served with numerous charges vide letter dated 20.1.86 of the Disciplinary Authority, whereby he was required to submit explanation. The petitioner requested tor certain papers in order to submit his explanation.

(3.) The case of the Bank in the supplementary counter-affidavit is that the petitioner was given opportunity to peruse the documents vide letter No. 11/86, dated 25.3.86, but he did not avail of the opportunity and peruse the documents, nor did he submit his explanation. Later, he was served with the chargesheet vide memo No. 624 dated 21.9.87 (annexure 6 to the writ application) in regard to certain financial irregularities. The enquiry was conducted by the inquiring Authority. It is claimed on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance in full since his suspension in the year 1983, as huge amount has wrongly been shown to have been adjusted against non-existing dues ana the petitioner was at the stage of starvation, he had prayed for an advance of Rs. 200/- to enable him to go to the concerned branches for perusing the documents, but no advance was given to him in order to deprive him from defending himself in the disciplinary enquiry. On 29.8.88 the petitioner requested the Inquirying Officer to allow him to engage a lawyer to defend his case, which was also finally denied by the Disciplinary Authority vide his letter dated 11.11.88. which as claimed by the petitioner was intimated to him on 22.12.88 It is alleged that in the meantime, the enquiry proceeded without even waiting for the order of the Disciplinary Authority and an ex parte report was submitted by the Inquirying Authority.