NAWAL KISHORE RAM Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the Bank.

(2.) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.02.2013 issued by the General Manager-cum-Appointing Authority awarding the punishment of dismissal in terms of Rule 67 (i) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rule. The punishment contemplates that the period of suspension will not be treated as on duty. Petitioner has also challenged the Appellate Authority's order dated 28.02.2014 whereby Patna High Court CWJC No.8063 of 2014 dated 14-08-2018 2/6 the order of punishment has been upheld.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently argued that the petitioner was not served with copy of the charge memo. He has also submitted that two notices dated 07.10.2012 (Annexure 4) and 02.11.2012 (Annexure 6) were not served on the petitioner. He has submitted that as a result of non-submission of charge memo as also said two notices, a serious infraction of the principles of natural justice has been perpetrated in conduct of the proceedings against the petitioner. He has also submitted that enquiry report was not served on the petitioner and that the various issues, which the petitioner has raised before the Appellate Authority, have not been considered by the Appellate Authority. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon his communication dated 05.09.2012 wherein he has requested the Enquiry Officer for copy of the charge memo by post. Referring to the Bank's communication dated 07.10.2012 and 02.11.2012, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that they were served upon him after the next dates which were fixed and communicated under the said letters. He submits that as a result of non-communication of notices and non-communication of charge memo, he has been deprived of his opportunity and such proceedings conducted in gross violation of the Patna High Court CWJC No.8063 of 2014 dated 14-08-2018 3/6 principles of natural justice are unsustainable in the eyes of law and cannot be made the basis of awarding such a severe penalty upon the petitioner.