LEKHRAJ SRICHANDANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner while he was working as Branch Manager of the State Bank of India. The disciplinary authority found three charges proved against the petitioner and imposed major penalty under Rule 49(g) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules (in short the Staff Service Rules) and removed the petitioner from service. After unsuccessful appeal the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition assailing his termination order and seeking declaration that Rule 50(3)(ii) of the Staff Service Rules is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Brief resume of the facts is that on March 18, 1982, while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the State Bank of India Itarna Branch was suspended pending further action. On March 23, 1984 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet along with the memorandum of allegations. Four charges were levelled against the petitioner. After enquiry the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges except charge No. 3, which was also proved partially. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the report of the enquiry officer and held three charges proved against the petitioner and imposed the major penalty of removal from service by the order dated Jan. 30, 1986. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal was also rejected vide communication dated Aug. 7, 1986. Earlier to the disciplinary proceedings, the C.B.I. has also enquired into the matter.

(3.) The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and averred that the petitioner was suspended in connection with certain irregularities committed by the petitioner in connection with sanction, conduct and follow up of advances in general and grant of clean overdrafts to firms/individual in particular while working as Branch Manager at Itarna Branch. The C.B.I. established sufficient material for initiating regular departmental enquiry for imposing major penalty against the petitioner. The respondents also averred that the entire procedure followed in respect of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was absolutely legal and proper and wholly in accordance with the Service Rules of the respondent Bank. The petitioner was given due and complete opportunity of hearing and the entire proceedings were absolutely valid, legal and proper. The disciplinary authority after going through the enquiry proceedings vis-a-vis the documents produced in the enquiry, findings of the enquiry authority and other relevant papers held the petitioner guilty of three charges for displaying gross negligence, irregular passing of pecuniary gains the borrowers as well as to himself, exposing Bank to grave financial risk. In relation to the petitioner's appeal the respondents averred that the matter was duly considered by the Local Board of the Bank at its meeting held on Aug. 7, 1986 and it was resolved to confirm the penalty of removal from Bank's service of the petitioner and rejected the appeal.