STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ANIL KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant -State Bank of India is aggrieved of order passed in W.P.(S) No.3255 of 2003 filed by the respondent -employee namely, Anil Kumar Mishra, whereby the penalty of removal from service has been held bad, illegal and unsustainable on account of consultation with the Central Vigilance Officer.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case speaks that the respondent no.1 -writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as respondent) served at Patan Branch of the appellant -Bank from 16.06.1998 to 10.11.1998 and during this period he committed several acts of misconduct for which a charge -memo dated 17.06.2000 containing the following charges was served upon him:

(3.) An enquiry followed the charge -memo, which concluded with submission of the enquiry report dated 12.09.2001. The Enquiring Authority found the charges at Sl. Nos. (i), (iv) and (vi) proved whereas, charges at Sl. Nos. (v) and (vii) were held partly proved. The charges as framed at Sl. Nos. (ii) and (iii) were held "not proved". The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority on the Articles of charge which were found not proved or partly proved and held that the respondent failed to serve the Bank with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. A copy of the enquiry report with the disagreement note dated 01.10.2001 of the Disciplinary Authority were served upon the respondent. The respondent submitted his reply, denying the charges levelled against him and prayed for exoneration from the charges. What happens thereafter, would lead to the crux of the matter.