PATNA, India, July 30 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 14:

This Court has heard Mr Bipin Krishna Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, learned Advocate for the State Bank of India.

2. The challenge made in the present writ petition is to the order dated 22.08.2016 contained in Letter No. VIG/Gen/VK/173 issued under the signature of the General Manager & Appointing Authority, whereby the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of dismissal from service in terms of Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 with further direction that the period of suspension will not be treated on duty. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the original order also came to be rejected vide letter bearing No. HR/A&R/2919 dated 16.12.2016; and further the review petition filed by the petitioner also rejected by the Reviewing Authority, as conveyed vide letter bearing No. 638 dated 03.10.2017, which are also put to challenge in the present writ petition.

3. The brief facts, as culled out from the materials available on record, are as follows:

(i)The petitioner joined the service of the State Bank of India on 26.12.1985 as Clerk-cum-Cashier. After serving so many years, the petitioner was promoted to officer cadre in JMGS-I and further in MMGS-II as also MMGS-III in the officer cadre of the respondent Bank.

(ii)While the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager at Laukaha Branch during 16.09.2014 to 08.04.2015 and at Simrahi Bazar Branch during 01.06.2010 to 30.09.2011, the petitioner was allegedly found indulge in official irregularities as well as misdeeds with dishonest intention, prejudicial to the Bank's interest and its credentials and goodwill, causing pecuniary loss to it. There was furhter allegation, inter alia, that he put hold on the entire balance in the respective savings bank account of two customers after disbursement of loan with intention to compel them to visit the Branch to pay illegal gratification. Customers were also misbehaved and mishandled by the petitioner and other officials and after extracting illegal gratification, hold on account was removed. To destroy the evidence of misdeeds, the petitioner replaced the digital video recorder syster of CCTV camera.

(iii) Taking cognizance of the aforesaid act, an internal investigation was carried out; on being found the imputation prima facie true, the disciplinary authority vide his letter dated 09.07.2015 placed the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding. A memo of charge along with list of documents as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ petition were duly served and the petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence. On being found the explanation not worth consideration, the disciplinary enquiry proceeded further and the enquiry officer as also the presenting officer were appointed. After completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated 23.05.2016, copy of which is marked as Annexure-14 to the writ petition.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTQyOSMyMDIwIzEjTg==-cucvr--ak1--iyWoE=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.