* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 791/2000
% 8th December, 2016
SHRI K.M.TOMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Advocate.
versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate for SBI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India argues only one point to set aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.12.1991 passed in the present case and which is that the disciplinary authority has while passing the impugned order dated 30.12.1991 upheld all the charges against the petitioner although the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 21.5.1991 had exonerated the petitioner with respect to some charges. It is argued that the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority before passing of the order dated 30.12.1991 is illegal because in accordance with the settled law in case the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings W.P. (C) No.791/2000 Page 1 of 4 and conclusions of the Enquiry Officer then the disciplinary authority must issue a specific show cause notice to the petitioner/charged officer giving his mind/notice as to why and on what charges the disciplinary authority disagrees with the report of the Enquiry Officer with regard to certain charges, and which has not been done in case of the petitioner.
2. In the present case, the petitioner was charge sheeted by a show cause notice dated 31.10.1989 which contained a total of 18 imputations of misconduct. As per the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer by his report dated 21.5.1991 exonerated the petitioner with respect to some of the charges (counsel for the petitioner could not point out which) but the disciplinary authority by the order dated 30.12.1991 has upheld the findings on all the charges, although the petitioner was acquitted as regards some of the imputations of misconduct/charges. Is this so?
3. In my opinion, factually, the argument of the petitioner is misconceived, though legally there is no dispute that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer then a show cause notice and a hearing must be given to the charged officer before disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. To show that the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is factually incorrect that the disciplinary authority has set aside the findings of the Enquiry Officer even W.P. (C) No.791/2000 Page 2 of 4 with respect to those imputations of misconduct of which petitioner is exonerated, let us refer to the order of the disciplinary authority dated 30.12.1991 and which order reads as under:-
"Ref./No. VIGL/DP.1671 Date 30.12.91
Dear Sir,
STAFF : SUPERVISING
I refer to the chargesheet bearing No. DAC/1389 dated the 31st October, 1989 served upon you for the alleged irregularities committed by you while posted as Branch Manager at Karawal Nagar Branch and subsequent departmental enquiry ordered into the charges leveled against you. The findings of the Inquiring Authority have since been received. A copy has already been sent to you.
2. The Disciplinary Authority has considered the findings of the Inquiring Authority and your submissions thereto, a copy of the „Note‟ containing the findings of the Disciplinary Authority is enclosed.
3. I have considered the records pertaining to the enquiry in their entirety and agree with the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority.
4. Taking into account the gravity of acts of misconduct established against you, I have decided to impose upon you the penalty of Dismissal in terms of Rule 49 (h) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules read with Rule 50 (3) (iii) ibid. Accordingly, you are thereby dismissed from the Bank‟s service with immediate effect. You will also not be eligible for salary and allowances for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid to you.
5. If you desire to make an appeal to the Appellate Authority against my order imposing upon you the penalty specified above, you may do so within 45 days from the date of receipt of this letter by you, as provided for in Rule 51 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules.
6. A copy of this letter has been placed in your service file. Yours faithfully, Sd/-
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
(APPOINTING AUTHORITY)" (underlining added)
W.P. (C) No.791/2000 Page 3 of 4
4. A reading of paragraph 2 of this order shows that the petitioner‟s submissions have been considered. Paragraph 3 of this order dated 30.12.1991 shows that the findings of the Enquiry Officer have been upheld in their entirety and whatever is held by the Enquiry Officer has been upheld by the disciplinary authority, and therefore it is factually incorrect to argue that the disciplinary authority has set aside the findings and conclusions exonerating the petitioner with respect to some of the imputations of misconduct. I do not find any such conclusion in the order of the disciplinary authority dated 30.12.1991.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
DECEMBER 08, 2016 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK
W.P. (C) No.791/2000 Page 4 of 4