(1.) Whether Audi Alteram Partem rule of natural justices would be attracted and whether petitioner could be promoted before expiry of the period of punishment in the form of withholding two increments are the short questions for our considerations in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(2.) The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II post in the State Bank of India with effect from 1st August, 1987 as well as 1st August, 1988 on the basis of the seniority channel, without taking into account the punishment of stoppage of two increments which have already been awarded by the respondents under the signature of the General Manager (Operation) vide order contained in Memo No. 1072, dated 4th July, 1987 particularly taking into account that the persons who were junior to the petitioners are going to be considered for such promotion ; and next relief is that the punishment for withholding of two increments consequent upon the disciplinary proceedings order was passed on 4th July, 1987 by the General Manager (Operation) and the order, dated 31st December, 1987, passed by the appellate authority was also quashed and in any case to direct the Appellate Authority to decide the review-application which was filed by the petitioner and was still pending.
(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed in the State Bank of India and is at present functioning as Junior Management Grade Scale-I office. In the year 1986 he received one statement of imputation of lapses in respect of 1984-85, for certain Demand Draft purchase from the respondent Chief General Manager, the then disciplinary authority vide Memo, dated 1st July, 1986 and in terms of Rule-50 (4) (1) of the State Bank of India (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules and he was asked to submit his written statement or defence within a period of fortnight.