Delhi High Court
Shri K.M.Tomar vs State Bank Of India & Ors. on 8 December, 2016
* 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
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
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)
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
