DAULAT RAISINGHANI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

(2.) The case of the petitioner (since deceased and now represented by his LRs) is that on 7 th June, 1979, he joined the respondent-State Bank of India's (hereafter 'the Bank') service as Technical Officer (Agriculture). Two charge sheets - one relating to Atru Branch and another relating to Jaipur Special Branch were issued to him and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. So far as disciplinary proceedings relating to Atru Branch, penalty of reduction to a lower grade by two stages in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect was visited upon the petitioner vide Bank's order dated 3.7.1999. So far as disciplinary proceedings relating to Jaipur Special Branch was concerned, the petitioner was punished with the penalty of Censure, vide Bank's order dated 28.9.1999.

(3.) While working as Assistant Manager, HMT, Ajmer Branch bank, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the Bank's service vide order dated 24.11.1997 w.e.f. 30.11.1997 under Rule 19 (1) proviso 3 of SBI Officers Service Rule-1992 and a banker's cheque representing 3 months' pay in lieu of notice period was purportedly sent therewith. The petitioner filed the appeal thereagainst alleging that he did not receive the original banker's cheque representing three months' pay in lieu of notice period, which vitiated the order of compulsory retirement but it was dismissed on 25.5.1998 being time barred. However, the rejection of the appeal is not the subject matter of the petition but recorded as a mere fact, aside of the illegality of his compulsory retirement. The petitioner also alleges that his appointing authority was the Chief General Manager and he was also his disciplinary authority, yet the petitioner's order of compulsory retirement was passed by General Manager (D&PB), who being lower in rank, was not competent to so do. Thus, on account of non compliance of the provisions of law, the petitioner was to be treated in bank's service till his retirement. In the alternative his salary, annual grade increment, interest on provident fund amount, leave encashment, travelling allowance, pension were not duly made over by the bank authorities but arbitrarily withheld by the bank. She also alleges that representation in the matter regarding non credit of installments in Gold Loan Account, despite deposit, remained unattended by the bank.