KRISHNA RAM Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order of punishment of dismissal awarded by the disciplinary authority vide memo dated 23rd June, 1999 (As contained in Annexure - 7), as well as for quashing of order of the appellate authority dated 7th April, 2000 (as contained in Annexure - 13), as well as for quashing of the inquiry report dated 20th May, 1998 (annexure - 4). Petitioner has also prayed for follow up orders for reinstatement with all consequential benefits treating him in regular service. In the alternative, petitioner has prayed for a direction to the appellate authority to adhere to his proposed punishment/decision dated 8th December, 1999 contained in Ref. No. ZO/B/DPS/2588 as decision in appeal. Petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the disciplinary proceeding being a quasi -judicial proceeding, any external authority, including Vigilance cannot direct and/or dictate terms to the disciplinary authority and/or the appellate authority in the matter including the punishment to be imposed.

(2.) THE facts of the case, as culled out in the writ application, in short, are that while at the relevant time petitioner was working as messenger in the Lalpaniya Branch of the respondent Bank, certain documents in the Branch were found tampered relating to the savings account on 15th and 16th of March 1992. Petitioner was prima facie found involved and, therefore, he was put under suspension. Vide memo dated 22nd December, 1992 (as contained in Annexure - 1), petitioner was served with charges and was asked to show cause to the charges. Petitioner submitted his reply on 2nd February, 1993 (as contained in Annexure -2) in which he denied the charges and pleaded innocence. However, the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with his reply and, vide memo dated 25th February, 1993 (as contained in Annexure - 3), decided to institute regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner and appointed Sri A.K. Jyotishi, Branch Manager of Katihar Branch as inquiry officer. By letter dated 28th August, 1993, the inquiry officer was changed and one Sri M.N. Jena was appointed as inquiry officer. The inquiry officer started preliminary hearing on 24th April, 1993 and completed the same and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 15th May, 1995. However, the disciplinary authority found certain infirmities in the inquiry and directed the inquiry officer to re -open the inquiry from the stage of evidence. Accordingly the inquiry was re -opened and was closed on 13th December, 1997 and the report was submitted on 20th May, 1998 (as contained in Annexure - 4). In his report the inquiry officer found charge Nos. A & C as proved, charge No. D partially proved and charge No. B & E as not proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice (as contained in Annexure - 5) to the petitioner to the proposed punishment of dismissal without any notice. Petitioner filed his show cause (as contained in Annexure - 6). On 23.6.1999, the disciplinary authority rejected the show cause of the petitioner and passed orders of punishment of dismissal of the petitioner, (as contained in Annexure - 7) without any notice.

(3.) IN the background of the facts as disclosed in the writ petition and noticed above, at the final hearing stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority, exercising quasi judicial powers, was duty bound in law to take its independent decision in the matter and pass appropriate orders on the appeal of the petitioner. He submitted that, in fact, the appellate authority had arrived at a decision earlier, vide Annexure - 10 dated 8th December, 1999, and communicated the same to the higher authorities of the Bank. However, on the dictates of the higher authorities of the Bank as well as that of the Vigilance, he had to change his decision and had to issue the impugned order as contained in Annexure - 13. Therefore, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned Annexure - 13 is vitiated on account of having been issued on the direction/suggestion of external authority/person and as such the same is fit to be quashed. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority, exercising his quasi judicial powers, had already arrived at the decision on the appeal of the petitioner, vide Annexure - 10, and the reference by him to the General Manager (D & PB) being a futile exercise in law, this Court should issue a direction to the respondents to treat the same as final order passed in the appeal and adhere to it and take consequential steps pursuant to the same.