MAHESHWAR RAM Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal from service as contained in the letter dated 1.12.95 and also the order by which the departmental appeal filed by him was rejected by the authorities of the respondent -State Bank of India.

(2.) IT appears that in 1992 while the petitioner was working in the Bank as a clerk, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in which the petitioner was reverted from the post of Teller to the post of clerk -cum -typist. In 1993 a fresh charge sheet was served upon the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that in the written statement filed by him in the earlier departmental proceeding he used extremely derogatory language against the superior authorities and also levelled malicious allegations to the highest authorities of the Bank. The other charge was that while he was working as a Teller at the Gumla branch of the Bank, he threatened the Branch Manager in his chamber and thereby displayed riotious, disorderly and indecent behaviour in the premises of the Bank. The petitioner filed reply to the charges levelled against him and in the departmental proceeding the Enquiry Officer, after holding full fledged inquiry, submitted his report holding that the first charge was fully proved and the second charge was partly proved.

(3.) THE petitioner filed a departmental appeal before the authority of the Zonal office of the Bank. The appellate authority, by passing a reasoned speaking order, upheld the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority and held that there did not appear any ground for modifying the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary authority. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. 1995 (6) SCC 157 and 2000 (3) SCC 443. 6. Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -Bank on the other hand, submitted that the departmental proceeding conducted by the respondents is perfectly in accordance with law and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner the punishment by way of dismissal from service is quite appropriate and the same cannot be said to be excessive. Learned counsel further submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not even been specifically denied by him, rather, the petitioner tried to justify the charges levelled against him. 7. From perusal of the inquiry report it appears that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to adduce both oral and documentary evidences. So far charge no. 1 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer held that the factum of charge is a matter of record inasmuch as the abusive language used by the petitioner was mentioned in the written statement which has not been denied by him. So far charge no. 2 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer, after appreciation of evidences, held that the second charge was partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority while issuing show cause notice recorded reasons of his' disagreement so far charge no. 2 is concerned and has referred the evidences to show that charge no. 2 was also wholly proved. The petitioner filed his show cause and, thereafter, by passing reasoned order, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that both the charges were fully proved.