ANIL KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy involved in this case gives rise to the issue whether the appointing authority having taken a decision to impose the penalty of reduction in the grade and the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty can subsequently change the decision on the advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer and impose the penalty of removal from service, under influence of such advice.

(2.) THE petitioner, who had been working as the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Patan Branch, was served with a memo dated 17.6.2000, in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, containing articles of charges.

(3.) THE petitioner denied the charges and faced the enquiry. In the departmental enquiry, some of the charges were proved against the petitioner. He did not prefer to challenge the findings of enquiry officer. It is not of much relevance to go into the detail of material on record in view of the admitted position, as discussed hereinafter.