Orissa High Court
Sadananda Mallick vs The Chief General Manager And .... ... on 25 June, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.33733 of 2011
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Sadananda Mallick .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
The Chief General Manager and .... Opposite Party (s)
Appellate Authority, State Bank of
India, Bhubaneswra & Anr.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : M/s. Mihir Kanta Rath,
Aditya Narayan Dash
For Opposite Party (s) : M/s. Akhyaya Kumar Mishra,
P.B. Bharadwaj
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-15.05.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -25.06.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner being a superannuated
employee/Assistant Manager (Accounts) of the State Bank of India, has
challenged the order of his dismissal from service dated 20th February,
2010/Annexure-6 passed by the General Manager (NW-II) &
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
Appointment Authority. He further challenges the order of the
appellate authority dated 23.06.2010/Annexure-8 and also the order of
the Review Committee dated 26.09.2011/Annexure-9.
2. Apart from the above challenge, the Petitioner has also sought for a
direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties for granting all service
benefits in his favour with effect from the date of his dismissal from
service.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. The brief fact of the case in brevity remains:-
(i) The Petitioner was working as an Assistant Manager (Accounts) in
Kupari Branch of the State Bank of India during the period from
August, 2005 to July, 2008.
(ii) During his incumbency in the said Branch, he was served a charge sheet
dated 09.02.2009 on the ground of alleged irregularity in the matter of
gold loan account. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted against him as
per the provision under Rule 68(2)(iii) of the State Bank of India Officers
Service Rules, (hereinafter in short be called as the Rules). In the articles
of charges, it was alleged that the Petitioner is responsible for the
serious irregularities in the gold loan accounts during his incumbency
at Kupari Branch. Prior to such charges the Petitioner was also served
with a notice to show cause on 19.11.2008.
(iii) The Petitioner being called upon by the notice to show cause prior to
serving of the charge sheet, has also submitted his reply stating clearly
therein that he was instructed to work as Joint custodian w.e.f.
18.11.2006 and he was on leave on 26.04.2008 and 14.05.2008 to
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
16.05.2008 and on 26.06.2008 he handed over the charges alongwith all
cash and documents on account of his transfer, but he was surprised to
know about the shortage of gold ornaments.
(iv) In the said explanation, other aspects were also mentioned stating the
innocence of the Petitioner that he is not in any way guilty of any
charges. Upon serving of the charge sheet, the Petitioner had also
submitted his reply stating all the facts for the purpose of appreciating
the matter. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted by the Enquiring Officer
being appointed by the Bank. Although the Petitioner wanted
reasonable opportunity to be given to him, the same was not given to
the Petitioner.
(v) The documents required to be produced before the Enquiry Officer for
fair and proper adjudication of the matter, were deliberately withheld
by the Bank and the Petitioner's defence pleas were not taken into
consideration. It is further submitted that on the allegation of
irregularity in the gold loan and the missing of gold ornaments of the
Bank, an F.I.R. was submitted before the concerned Police Station and
accordingly, a Criminal Case was registered vide Balasore P.S. Case
No.73 of 2008 under Sections 406/ 409/ 420/34 of I.P.C.
(vi) The statements recorded by the Police during Investigation though are
material evidences, the same were not taken into consideration
inasmuch as the criminal case on the self same issues having been
pending in the Criminal Court, the further evidences are to be adduced
before the learned Trial Court which have got its own relevancy. So far
as the issue relating to the irregularity in the gold loan and missing of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
gold ornaments from the Bank are concerned, the request of the
Petitioner to take into consideration all the relevant factors were not
considered by the Inquiry Officer.
(vii) Furthermore, the Petitioner has repeatedly stated before the Inquiry
Officer that the defence pleas in the Criminal Proceeding need not be
disclosed by the Petitioner at this stage, which will ultimately affect his
right and interest in the Criminal Trial. Notwithstanding the aforesaid
position, the Inquiry Officer in an undue haste and without taking into
account the relevant aspects of the matter closed the inquiry and the
inquiry report was submitted holding the Petitioner guilty of the
charges. From the inquiry report it would be evident that the Inquiry
Officer has prepared the report basing on surmises and conjectures
without considering the defence plea of the Petitioner in any manner
whatsoever.
(viii) The inquiry report does not at all reflect the defence plea of the
Petitioner and the specific case of the Petitioner is that his absence as
aforesaid should be taken into consideration and he being the joint
custodian of the account relating to the gold loan and gold deposits,
cannot be saddled with responsibility of missing of gold alone and his
absence before the transfer remaining on leave was the most vital aspect
of the proceeding, which shows the innocence of the Petitioner, but the
same has not been taken into consideration during the process of
inquiry and the inquiry was conducted in a most unfair and improper
manner, without following the principles of natural justice and the
inquiry itself was a perfunctory one.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
(ix) After submission of the inquiry report, the Petitioner was asked to
submit his show cause to the said report, which he did on 16.12.2009
highlighting the entire issue and the factual aspects, which have not
been taken into consideration during the process of inquiry. It was also
specifically urged that the Police is yet to submit its final report and the
criminal investigation system is still in progress. Upon submission of
final report and conclusion of the criminal investigation, the real culprit
can be brought into record and there should not be any haste in
deciding the matter and holding the Petitioner guilty of charges.
(x) The reply was submitted on each of the imputation by the Petitioner
and he has also explained as to how he is not guilty of any of the
charges and he has been falsely implicated. Notwithstanding the above,
the Disciplinary authority based on the inquiry report and without
considering the pleas of the Petitioner passed the order on 20.02.2010 by
imposing the major punishment like dismissal of the Petitioner from
service in terms of Rule 67 (j) of the Rules.
(xi) Soon after getting the order of dismissal the Petitioner on 05.04.2010
preferred appeal before the Appellate authority stating the factual
aspect as well as the grounds, which itself shows the position of the
inquiry and as to how the Disciplinary Authority has not applied its
mind. The Disciplinary Authority has simply agreed with the findings
in the Inquiry Officer resulting in passing of the order of dismissal from
service.
(xii) Upon deciding of the appeal by the Appellate Authority and passing of
the order, which was communicated on 23.0612010, the Petitioner came
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
to know that it has been stated therein that having considered the case
in its entirety and taking into account the seriousness of the charges as
proved, the punishment is imposed, which is quite justified and there is
no such reason for interference and the appeal was thus, dismissed.
From the order of the Appellate Authority it is evident that the
appellate authority has not applied its mind properly while considering
the defence pleas of the Petitioner as well as the specific grounds taken
in the Appeal and the appeal has been dealt with in a mechanical
fashion by agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as
the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority while deciding the
appeal has utterly failed to discharge his responsibility properly in
dealing with the appeal resulting in a quite unfair and unreasonable
order.
(xiii) The Petitioner being a victim of the situation has been fervently
pleading his case that he is no way connected with the alleged
misconduct or crime and his case should be considered in a fair and
proper manner. Therefore, he also persistently followed his case for
redressal of his grievance as serious injustice has been caused to him by
the Opposite Parties while deciding the disciplinary proceeding against
him and inflecting the major penalty like the dismissal from service.
(xiv) Therefore, the Petitioner not being guilty of any of the charges,
preferred a Review Petition for review of the order of the Appellate
Authority with the hope and trust that the entire record pertaining to
the allegations, article of charges, materials in the Criminal Case, and
the materials available in the disciplinary proceeding would be
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
considered by the Review Committee while deciding the application for
review. But to his misfortune the Review Committee decided the issue
in a routine manner without appreciating the factual position in proper
perspective and without looking into any of the materials, which are
relevant for the purpose. The order in the said review was passed in the
meeting dated 10.09.2011 which was communicated to the Petitioner on
26.09.2011.
(xv) As authorities did not consider in proper perspective the defence plea of
the Petitioner, right from the stage of disciplinary authority till passing
of the order by the Review Committee, the Petitioner suffered a lot.
Hence, this Writ Petition.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being
called upon by the notice to show cause prior to serving of the charge
sheet, accordingly, he has also submitted his reply stating clearly
therein that he was instructed to work as Joint custodian w.e.f.
18.11.2006 and he was on leave on 26.04.2008 and 14.05.2008 to
16.05.2008 and on 26.06.2008 he handed over the charges along with all
cash and documents on account of his transfer, but he was surprised to
know about the shortage of gold ornaments.
(ii) In the said explanation other aspects were also mentioned stating the
innocence of the Petitioner that he is no way guilty of any charges.
Signature NotUpon serving of the charge sheet the Petitioner had also submitted his
Verified
Digitally Signed
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
reply stating all the facts for the purpose of appreciating the matter.
Thereafter, inquiry was conducted by the Inquiring Officer being
appointed by the Bank. Although the Petitioner wanted reasonable
opportunity to be given to him, the same was not given to the
Petitioner.
(iii) The documents required to be produced before the Inquiry Officer for
fair and proper adjudication of the matter, were deliberately withheld
by the Bank and the Petitioner's defence pleas were not taken into
consideration. It is further submitted that on the allegation of
irregularity in the gold loan and the missing of gold ornaments of the
Bank, an F.I.R. was lodged before the concerned Police Station and
accordingly, a Criminal Case was registered vide Balasore P.S. Case No.
73 of 2008 under Sections 406/ 409/ 420/34 of I.P.C.
(iv) The statements recorded by the Police during investigation though are
material evidences, the same were not taken into consideration
inasmuch as the criminal case on the self same issues having been
pending in the Criminal Court, the further evidences are to be adduced
before the learned Trial Court which have got its own relevancy. So far
as the issue relating to the irregularity in the gold loan and missing of
gold ornaments from the Bank are concerned, the request of the
Petitioner to take into consideration all the relevant factors were not
considered by the Inquiry Officer.
(v) He further submits that the Petitioner being a victim of the
circumstances has been fervently pleading his case that he is no way
connected with the alleged misconduct or crime and his case should be
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
considered in a fair and proper manner. Therefore, he also persistently
followed his case for redressal of his grievance as serious injustice has
been caused to him by the Opposite Parties while deciding the
disciplinary proceeding against him and inflecting the major penalty
like the dismissal from service which is like a death knell to him. He,
accordingly, prays for allowing this Writ Petition.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:-
(i) Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, in nutshell, submitted that the
Petitioner during his incumbency as Assistant Manager (Accounts) at
SBI Kupari Branch from 17.08.2005 to 02.07.2008, had made certain acts
of serious financial irregularities in Gold Loan accounts of different
customers. Thereafter, a disciplinary action was initiated against him
followed by a notice to show cause served on him vide letter No.AGM
(Admin)/R-III/BBSR/HR/1347 dated 19.11.2008. Accordingly, a
statement of article of charges vide Memorandum No.VIG/GEN/544
dated 09.02.2009/Annexure-1 was served on him. The imputations
therein are reflected herein below:
(1) Fifteen packets of gold ornaments pledged to the Bank for Gold
loan purpose relating to the respective gold loan accounts
(described in Annexure-1 of the petition) were missing from
the Branch safe during his incumbency as Joint Custodian.
(2) The Gold Loan accounts of five borrowers (as described in
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
evidence of acknowledgement by the borrowers regarding
receipt of gold ornaments.
(3) After the detection of loss of Gold loan bags, the gross amount
of two gold loan accounts i.e. Rs. 91,236/-(GL A/c No.
11702808736- Rs.64917/- + GLA/c No. 11702808678-Rs. 26319/-)
was withdrawn by the Petitioner from his OD A/c No.
11702713366 against the 2 credit vouchers for closure of above
Gold Loan accounts. This act on his part shows that he tried to
suppress the fact of misappropriation of gold ornaments
arranging cash deposits in the above gold loan accounts from
his sources.
(iii) He, accordingly, submits that the Petitioner being an Accountant and
one of the joint custodians had committed serious irregularities as
stated above and violated Bank's laid down systems and procedures
and displayed gross negligence in discharging his duties. Due to such
acts of the Petitioner the Bank suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 14 lakhs.
(iv) Before initiating disciplinary proceeding a notice to Show cause vide
letter No.AGM (Admin)/R-ni/BBSR/HR/1347 dated 19.11.2008 was
served on the Petitioner. In response to the said show cause, the
Petitioner on 17.02.2008 submitted his reply denying all the allegations
leveled against him. As the reply of the Petitioner was not satisfactory,
it was decided by the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a departmental
inquiry for enquiring into the charges leveled against the Petitioner. The
inquiry proceeding was conducted in accordance with the service rules
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
governing the Officers in the Bank. The Inquiry Officer conducted the
inquiry after giving due notice to the Petitioner and following all
procedures.
(v) The Petitioner participated in the inquiry and was also represented
through the Defence Representative. After conclusion of the inquiry, the
Presenting Officer submitted his brief, a copy of which was provided to
the Defence Representative and subsequently the Defence
Representative on behalf of the Petitioner submitted his defense brief.
Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer, after perusing the Presenting Officer's
brief and defense brief submitted the detailed Enquiry Report/
Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition dated 18.11.2009 to the Disciplinary
Authority by giving his findings and holding all the charges as
"proved". He also contends that the said inquiry report was supplied to
the Petitioner asking for his submissions on the findings in the inquiry.
In compliance to the same, the Petitioner also submitted his reply vide
letter dated 16.12.2009.
(vi) The Disciplinary Authority/ Appointing Authority after independently
and carefully going through the imputations of lapses, the inquiry
report, submission of the Petitioner and other papers in detail, has
inflicted the penalty of "Dismissal" from Bank's service on the
Petitioner in terms of Rule 67(j) of SBIOSR, 1992 and the period of
suspension was to be treated as "not on duty" vide order dated
20.02.2010.
(vii) Against the said order of dismissal from service, the Petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. In his appeal, the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
Petitioner submitted that he should be given an opportunity to make an
oral submission in support of his appeal and prayed for quashing of
orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority
after examining the ground of appeal and oral submission dated
20.05.2010 was of the view that the penalty imposed on the Petitioner is
in tune with the gravity of lapses and that too no fresh facts had been
brought out, which would warrant interference with the order of the
General Manager (Network- II) and the Appointing Authority. The
Appeal was, accordingly, dismissed.
(viii) Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties in the above backdrop, also
submits that while conducting the departmental inquiry, the procedure
and rules of the Bank were duly followed in accordance with the service
rules governing the Bank and there had been no violation of principle of
natural justice. Sufficient opportunities were given to the Petitioner to
defend his case. It is also submitted that the Petitioner had committed
serious irregularities during his incumbency as a Joint Custodian at
Kupari Branch and had violated Bank's laid down systems and
procedures. This not only put the Bank to heavy financial loss but also
adversely affected the reputation of the Bank in the society/ public. In
the Banking business absolute devotion and integrity need to be
preserved by every Bank employee and if this is not observed,
confidence of customers would be impaired.
(ix) It is also submitted that the disciplinary proceedings conducted in the
case, the order of dismissal inflicted on the Petitioner by the Appointing
Authority as well as consequential orders of the Appellate Authorities
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
are not illegal and arbitrary, more so, the same are in accordance with
the rules governing in the field as well as procedures of the Bank under
disciplinary proceedings and also by strictly adhering to the defined
Rules under SBIOSR, 1992. The principal of natural justice has also been
followed in every stage of the case.
(x) It is pertinent to mention here that in addition to the Memorandum of
charges vide letter No.VIG/GEN/544 dated 09.02.2009, the list of
documents and witnesses in support of articles of charges were
furnished in the enclosed Annexures-III & IV of the Memorandum
respectively to the Petitioner. In the said Memorandum, he was
permitted to peruse the relevant documents/records at the Bank's
Kupari Branch for one day for the purpose of submitting his statement
of defense. Further, during the inquiry proceedings, the prosecution
had produced a total number of 38 exhibits and copies of exhibits were
handed over to the defence representative. He, therefore, submits that
the averments of the Petitioner in this context are not tenable.
(xi) It is also contended that charges in the disciplinary proceedings are not
replica of the charges in the charge sheet of the criminal proceedings.
Though departmental proceedings has been initiated on the similar set
of facts, on perusal of documents on records, it would be crystal clear
that some of the charges against the Petitioner like; the Petitioner has
failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion
and diligence and acted in a manner highly prejudicial to the Bank's
interest in violation of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules,
cannot be a subject matter of adjudication in a criminal case. Some of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
the charges in the disciplinary proceedings are quite independent of the
charge sheet filed by the Police in the criminal case. The standard of
proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required
to be proved in a criminal cases i.e. preponderance of probabilities is
sufficient to punish a delinquent in departmental proceedings and even
if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings, the same does not
have any effect in a departmental proceedings.
(xii) The inquiry was conducted in accordance with the State Bank Officers
Service Rules and the principles of natural justice were followed. The
Petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend his case. The Inquiry
Officer had recorded his findings after considering both the prosecution
as well as the defence version. The Prosecution and defence exhibited
their respective witnesses. The Petitioner being a joint custodian was
responsible for the safety of the gold ornaments packed under his joint
custody in the safe. Therefore, his contention that he was not
responsible for missing of gold ornaments, is not tenable.
(xiii) It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the
order dated 20.02.2010, had considered the Petitioner's submissions
made vide letter dated 16.12.2009 along with all other connected papers
and was of the view that the Petitioner being one of the joint custodians
of gold and cash, was responsible for the loss of gold bags.
(xiv) Further, the disciplinary authority was of the view that the Petitioner's
plea regarding consideration of the final report of the Police
investigation had no connection with the departmental proceedings.
The Disciplinary Authority had also observed that the amount of Rs.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
91,236/-withdrawn by the Petitioner from his account tallied with the
sum of the deposit vouchers for closure of the two loan accounts at the
same time. Hence, it is crystal clear that the Petitioner had tried to
suppress the fact of misappropriation of gold ornaments by closing the
two gold loan accounts. After considering the imputation of lapses, the
inquiry report, submissions of the Petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority
inflicted the penalty of "dismissal from service" upon the Petitioner in
terms of the Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules,
1992.
(xv) On perusal of the order dated 23.06.2010 passed by the Appellate
Authority, it is evident that the Appellate Authority had considered the
Appeal dated 05.04.2010 preferred by the Petitioner as well as the
records of the disciplinary action and with due application of his mind
passed a detailed order. The Appellate Authority has considered each of
the imputations made in the Appeal separately and passed a reasoned
order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner
on 20.05.2010.
(xvi) The Reviewing Committee had gone through the submissions of the
Petitioner and the facts of the case and was of the view that the
Petitioner had merely reiterated his submissions made earlier in his
appeal. The Reviewing Committee/ thus/ didn't find any reasons to
interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority.
(xvii) The disciplinary proceeding was conducted in accordance with the
existing Rules and the principles of natural justice. It is reiterated that
the Petitioner being an Accountant and joint custodian of safe,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
committed serious irregularities by missing fifteen pockets of pledged
gold ornaments. All the imputations leveled against the Petitioner
including imputation of suppression of the fact of misappropriation of
gold ornaments held to be "proved".
(xviii) It is also submitted that the punishment is justified in view of the
gravity of proven lapses committed by the Petitioner. It is submitted in
this context that Bank is a financial Institution and custodian of public
money. A Banker is required to discharge his duties with due diligence,
honesty and integrity to protect interest of the Bank. Once the loyalty
and confidence of employee to the Institution is lost, the question of
continuance in service would be harmful and prejudicial to the interest
of the Bank and hence the order of dismissal is justified. He,
accordingly, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. During the departmental inquiry, the bank has adhered to its
procedures and rules, ensuring full compliance with the service
regulations governing the institution. The principles of natural justice
were upheld throughout the process, providing the petitioner with
ample opportunities to defend his case. It was found that the petitioner,
while serving as a Joint Custodian at the Kupari Branch, committed
serious irregularities by violating the bank's established systems and
procedures. These actions not only resulted in financial loss for the bank
but also tarnished its reputation within the community. In the banking
sector, it is imperative that all employees maintain absolute devotion
and integrity to preserve customer confidence.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
7. The disciplinary proceedings/ including the petitioner's dismissal by the
Appointing Authority and the subsequent decisions by the Appellate
Authorities, were conducted legally and fairly. These actions were in
strict adherence to the rules and procedures outlined in the State Bank
of India Officers' Service Rules (SBIOSR), 1992.
8. Significantly, along with the Memorandum of charges (letter No.
VIG/GEN/544 dated February 9, 2009), a list of supporting documents
and witnesses was provided to the petitioner, as detailed in Annexures-
III & IV of the Memorandum. The petitioner was granted permission to
review relevant documents and records at the bank's Kupari Branch for
one day to prepare his defense statement. During the inquiry, the
prosecution presented 38 exhibits, copies of which were given to the
defense representative. Consequently/ the petitioner's claims in this
context are unfounded.
9. It is important to note that the charges in the disciplinary proceedings
differ from those in criminal proceedings. Although the departmental
and criminal charges stem from similar facts, a review of the records
reveals that certain charges against the petitioner--such as failing to
perform duties with integrity, honesty, devotion, and diligence, and
acting against the bank's interests--fall outside the scope of criminal
adjudication. Some charges in the disciplinary proceedings are distinct
from the criminal charges filed by the police. The standard of proof in
departmental proceedings, which relies on the preponderance of
probabilities, is less stringent than in criminal cases. Thus, an acquittal
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
in criminal proceedings does not impact the outcome of departmental
proceedings.
10. The inquiry has strictly adhered to the State Bank Officers Service Rules
and principles of natural justice. The petitioner was given sufficient
opportunity to present his defense. The Inquiry Officer evaluated the
evidence from both the prosecution and defense before recording his
findings. Both sides presented their witnesses. As a joint custodian, the
Petitioner was responsible for the safety of the gold ornaments under
his custody in safe.
11. The Disciplinary Authority, in its order dated February 20, 2010,
considered the Petitioner's submissions (dated December 16, 2009) and
all related documents. It is concluded that the Petitioner, as a joint
custodian of gold and cash, was accountable for the missing gold bags.
The authority also determined that the petitioner's request to consider
the final report of the police investigation was irrelevant to the
departmental proceedings. Additionally, the Disciplinary Authority
observed that the Rs.91,236/- withdrawn by the Petitioner from his
account corresponded with the sum of the deposit vouchers for closing
two loan accounts simultaneously, indicating an attempt to conceal the
misappropriation of gold ornaments by closing these accounts. After
reviewing the lapses, inquiry report, and the Petitioner's submissions,
the authority imposed the penalty of "Dismissal from service" under
Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992.
12. The Appellate Authority, in its order dated June 23, 2010, demonstrated
that it had thoroughly reviewed the petitioner's appeal (dated April 5/
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
2010) and the disciplinary action records. Applying due diligence, the
Appellate Authority issued a detailed order after considering each of
the appeal's points and providing the Petitioner with a personal hearing
on May 20, 2010.
13. The Reviewing Committee reviewed the Petitioner's submissions and
case facts, finding that the Petitioner merely reiterated his earlier appeal
arguments. Thus, the committee saw no reason to alter the Appellate
Authority's order.
14. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted according to the existing
rules and principles of natural justice. The Petitioner, as an Accountant
and joint custodian of the safe, committed severe irregularities by losing
fifteen pockets of pledged gold ornaments. All charges against the
Petitioner, including the suppression of the misappropriation of gold
ornaments, were found to be proven.
15. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to accede to the submission of
the Petitioner. With respect to the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the prayer of the Petitioner.
16. This Writ Petition is dismissed.
17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 25th June, 2024/
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Jul-2024 13:01:37
