RANJAN KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY order dated 8th September. 2000 (Annexure -13) issued by the Assistant General Manager (IV) -cum -Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner who was the clerk -cum -cashier in the State Bank of India attached at Jhumari Telaiya Branch, has been dismissed from service. His appeal preferred before the respondent No.2 -the Deputy General Manager. State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ranchi, has also been rejected by the order dated 14th May. 2002. These two orders are under challenge by the petitioner in this writ application. He also seeks reinstatement in service pursuant to the quashing of the impugned orders.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted his reply to the charge -sheet on 13th September, 1996. The inquiry report was submitted on 25th November, 1989 holding all the charges established against the petitioner. Thereafter, the order of dismissal was passed on 12th July, 1990 by the Disciplinary Authority. On 5th September, 1990, he preferred an appeal and the Appellate, Authority, by order dated 19th September, 1991 (Annexure -4), set aside the order of dismissal and directed holding of a fresh inquiry after adducing the evidence and witnesses. On 21st September, 1991, fresh inquiry was initiated but on the same charges. The inquiry proceeded in which the petitioner participated and by Annexure -6 dated 17th October, 1997, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report. The, Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the first four charges out of six charges, as indicated herein above. On 25th November, 1997, the petitioner was asked to represent by serving him a copy of the inquiry report. On 9th December, 1997 vide Annexure - 7 the petitioner represented before the Disciplinary Authority with a request to drop the proceedings against him with a detailed reply. However, vide Annexure -8 dated 22nd October, 1999 the Disciplinary Authority passed a speaking order giving reasons for differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer in respect of the first four charges while concurring with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge Nos. 5 and 6. The petitioner was asked to be physically present on 28th October, 1999 to offer his reply to the said second show -cause.