RAVINDRA KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved because of the punishment which has been imposed upon him by the respondents Bank authorities which are by way of penalty of reduction in basic pay by three stages for three years. He will not earn increments during the period and the penalty will have the effect of postponing three increments under Rule 67(f) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rule and, further, the period of suspension shall not be treated as on duty and therefore he will not be entitled for any salary, allowances or other benefits for the period except the subsistence allowance.

(3.) THERE is no culpable finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner. They are at best, conjecture and surmises. More so the omission for which he has been charged with, may not amount to a perfect conduct by the rule book in discharge of responsibility but in absence of any mala fide act or conduct the petitioner can not be held to have caused any serious loss of business or reputation of the bank. The petitioner was served with charge -sheet which is contained in annexure -1 and the same has been broken up into six parts. It may be recorded that out of the six charges which were brought against the petitioner Charge Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were not proved. Charge No. 1 was partially proved. Charge Nos. 2 and 3 stands proved. It is therefore important to take note of charges specially the ones which are partially proved or fully proved.