LAWS(JHAR)-2018-4-36

ANIL KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

Decided On April 12, 2018
ANIL KUMAR MISHRA Appellant
V/S
STATE BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to send entire service records of the petitioner to this Hon'ble Court. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 21.12016 issued by the General Manager (NW-II)-cum-Appointing Authority, State Bank of India, Patna, whereby, the respondents have refused to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period from 20.03.2002 to 30.06.2013 (deemed superannuation).

(3.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. When the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Patna Branch, he was served with a charge-memo dated 17.06.2000, in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Service Rules and articles of charges were also furnished to him. Upon receipt of such charge-memo, the petitioner filed his reply denying the charges levelled against him and thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated, in which the petitioner was found to have performed his duties with utmost integrity and honesty but found him to be lacking diligence and devotion and held the charges to be partly proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority without assigning any reasons and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, differed with the enquiry report and held that the charges are fully proved. It is the further case of the petitioner, that after completion of the departmental proceeding, the appointing authority vide its order dated 20.02002, imposed penalty of "removal from service" under Rule 67(i) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. It is pertinent to mention here that, the appointing authority had initially taken a decision to impose penalty of reduction of the grade to JMGS-I and the period of suspension was to be treated as not on duty but under the direction of the Chief Vigilance Officer, ultimately, took a decision to impose penalty of "removal from service".