STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SAMPAT RAJ MEWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27. 9. 2002 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3079/2002.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner is working as Electronic Automatic Machine Operator (EAMO) at State Bank of India, Pali Marwar. He was entrusted with the work on the post of draft clearing. As per the instructions of the Bank, some drafts of Bank were reportedly lost and accordingly the numbers of those drafts were installed in the computer as such the lost drafts should not be cleared. The instructions were received from the higher authorities, that the drafts issued in the old format should not be cleared/passed. It has been alleged by the appellants that the respondent-petitioner had the enough knowledge about the instructions issued by the higher authorities and of the lost drafts. In spite of the above fact, the respondent-petitioner has said to have deleted the command of lost draft and cleared the drafts in dispute, for which a huge loss of Rs. 1 ,82,2367- was borne by the appellant-respondents. Thereafter a letter Annexure-1 alongwith the copies of the disputed drafts were sent to the respondent-petitioner and he was asked to submit his explanation. The respondent-petitioner submitted his explanation vide Annexure-2. After that, another letter dated 3 1. 5. 200 1 (Annexure-3) was also sent to the respondent-petitioner by the appellant-respondents stating therein that the computer system was showing the details of the lost drafts and there was difference in amount in figures and words then how the above drafts were passed by the respondent-petitioner. The respondent-petitioner again submitted his reply (Annexure-4 ). The whole matter was reported to the higher authorities and as per (Annexure-5, the higher authorities appellant-respondent No. 3 issued a memorandum to the respondent-petitioner (Annexure-5 and 7), calling upon the explanation and stating therein that the reply of the respondent-petitioner was not acceptable and appropriate disciplinary action for committing fraud which amounts to the gross-mis-conduct is being contemplated against the respondent-petitioner. Therefore, the respondent-petitioner was not found eligible to appear in the promotional tests. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed by the respondent-petitioner with the following prayers :-

(3.) THE appellant-respondents filed the reply to the writ petition and pleaded that the respondent-petitioner was responsible for clearing of the two drafts, which were reportedly lost and the numbers of those drafts were installed in the computers. The respondent-petitioner had enough knowledge regarding the instructions issued by the higher authorities and lost drafts. Thus, a memorandum (Annexure-5) was issued to the respondent-petitioner as disciplinary action was contemplated against him. The appellant-respondents have also pleaded that the banking services are very responsible services and it requires higher skill and integrity and since the respondent-petitioner has committed fraud and grave misconduct, therefore, as per the Debarment Policy of the Bank (Annexure-R/6), the respondent-petitioner was not entitled for any relief.