JUDGMENT Dev Kant Trivedi, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner Baboo Lal has challenged the order of his removal from service and sought for a direction to treat the petitioner in the service of the State Bank of India respondent No. 1.
2. Petitioner joined the service in the State Bank of India on 9th April, 1959. Subsequently he was appointed as Trainee Officer with effect from 16th August. 1965. The petitioner was confirmed as Staff Officer Grade III with effect from 1st December. 1967.
3. The petitioner was posted as Branch Manager from 10th March, 1973 to 4th April, 1977. He was transferred from Handia Branch to various Branches.
4. On 17th August, 1979 he was served with a charge-sheet by the Chief General Manager. In the said charge-sheet 11 charges were levelled against the petitioner. Enquiry report was submitted by the enquiring officer on 15th March, 1982 holding the charges No. 1 to 9 to have been established against the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter dismissed from service on 4th September, 1982. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred a writ petition praying for the quashing of the charge-sheet dated 17th August, 1979. This Writ Petition No. 9361 of 1981 was dismissed and the interim order, dated 30th July, 1981 was discharged. The dismissal order was served on the petitioner on 15th May. 1984. He preferred an appeal which was rejected on 7th April, 1986. The petitioner then preferred Writ Petition No. 5235 of 1986 against the said dismissal order. The writ petition was allowed on 2nd April, 1991 and the dismissal order as well as the order of dismissal of appeal were quashed. It was, however, directed that the respondents shall hold the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner from the stage at which it was to be held on January 30, 1982 and shall complete the enquiry within a period of three months from the date on which the copy of the order was produced by the petitioner before the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India. Lucknow provided the petitioner cooperates. It was also directed in the said judgment dated 2nd April, 1991 that if the petitioner does not co-operate in the enquiry, the respondents may proceed ex parte.
5. The petitioner was provided with the salary and certain benefits after the passing of the order, dated 2.4.91 In the Writ Petition No. 5235 of 1986. The General Manager (Operations) appointed Sri K. Radhakrishnan as the Enquiry officer on 7th May, 1991, which order was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the respondents were to hold disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner from the stage at which it was to be held on January 30, 1982. The General Manager (Operations) directed the petitioner by means of a letter dated 15.6.1991 to appear before the enquiring officer. Sri K. Radhakrishnan, the enquiring officer proceeded ex parte on 10th June, 1991. However, the petitioner appeared before the enquiring officer on 13.6.91 and lodged the protest regarding the appointment of Sri K. Radhakrishnan. The petitioner sent a telegram to the enquiring officer on 3rd of July, 1991 for affording 15 days' time to give the reply of the prosecution brief as the petitioner was not feeling well those days. The enquiring officer, however, completed his enquiry and submitted report on 8th July, 1991 to the disciplinary authority. The petitioner submitted his reply to the enquiring officer on 10th August, 1991. The enquiry report was finally submitted to the disciplinary authority on 17th September, 1991. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner on 1st November, 1991. According to the enquiry report. 10 charges were found as proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was served with the removal order dated 19th July. 1993 on 31st July. 1993. An appeal was preferred against the order of removal on 11.9.93 and the same was rejected on 13.5.1995.
6. According to the petitioner, the Bank has suppressed material defence documents. No evidence was adduced in the enquiry by the Bank. The enquiring officer acted with a biased mind and denied the production of 37 additional defence documents. According to the petitioner, the order of removal is illegal, void and beyond jurisdiction as the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India and not the Chief General Manager. The Chief General Manager did not apply his mind and acted in a mechanical manner. The enquiry should have been conducted by the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries instead of a Departmental Officer. The enquiring officer did not permit the production of 37 additional defence documents and that no sufficient opportunity was provided by the enquiring officer during the course of enquiry.
7. The petition has been contested and a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. According to the respondents, although the appointing authority of the petitioner was Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India, but the designated appointing authority of the petitioner was the Chief General Manager who issued the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner in accordance with the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975, and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Rules, and none of the provisions of the Service Rules was violated. The petitioner adopted delaying tactics right from the very beginning and tried to prolong and delay the enquiry proceedings.
8. According to the respondents, it is immaterial whether the enquiring officer was the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, or an officer of the Bank. As the appointment of an enquiring authority is prerogative of the disciplinary authority due to non-availability of Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, the Central Office of the Bank advised the local Head Office to appoint one of the Bank Officer, and, therefore, Sri. K. Radhakrishnan. Officer Gr. SMGS-5 was appointed as enquiring authority, and the proceedings were started from the stage the same were left on 30th January, 1982 against the petitioner. The petitioner tried his best to evade the enquiry by raising frivolous and vexatious objections at every stage of the enquiry. The enquiring authority had fixed 10th June, 1991 as the date of hearing and information in this regard was received by the petitioner on 23rd May, 1991. The petitioner vide his letter dated 29th May, 1991 raised certain objections regarding the enquiry. The enquiring authority again advised the petitioner on 4th June. 1991 to attend the enquiry on 10th June, 1991. The enquiry was held at the Zonal Office of the Bank at Bareilly on 10th June. 1991, but the petitioner instead of appearing in the enquiry proceedings sent a telegram which was followed by a registered envelope which was received by the enquiring authority on 10th June, 1991 itself. The petitioner had sought for adjournment vide his letter dated 6th June. 1991. The enquiring authority observed that the enquiry was to be completed by 7th July. 1991 and it was the responsibility of the petitioner and the enquiring officer to see that the enquiry is completed within the time prescribed by the High Court. The enquiry was then ordered to be held on 13th June. 1991. It is alleged that the petitioner was given ample opportunity on each and every stage of enquiry proceedings and the principles of natural Justice were fully complied with by the Bank. On 29th June, 1991 the petitioner was advised that the defence brief, if any, be submitted by 4th July. 1991, but the petitioner failed to adhere to the schedule and the enquiring authority was left with no option but to submit the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 8th July, 1991. The petitioner thereafter submitted his defence brief on 22nd July. 1991 and wrote a letter dated 1st August, 1991 to the General Manager (Operations) (Disciplinary Authority) requesting him to direct enquiring authority to consider the defence brief and recast the findings. In order to substantially comply with the order of the Hon'ble High Court, on the request of the petitioner for recasting the findings after taking into consideration the defence brief dated 22nd July, 1991 and the written submissions of the petitioner dated 10th August. 1991, the finding were submitted to the disciplinary authority on 17th September, 1991. The petitioner submitted his submissions dated 10th December, 1991 against the findings of the enquiring authority. Thereafter the impugned order of removal of service was passed by the disciplinary authority. According to the respondents, there is no requirement of issuing a show-cause notice in the Officers' Service Rules applicable to the petitioner before imposing the order of removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of removal which was received in the Bank on 3rd of October, 1994, and thereafter without any delay the appeal was disposed of by the Bank. According to the respondents the documents not made available to the petitioner were never used in the enquiry proceedings and all the documents and records which were relevant, were perused by the petitioner who was provided full and every reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the punishment of removal from service is wholly commensurate with the gravity of the lapses committed by the petitioner duly proved by the enquiry proceedings conducted against him. It is denied that the appellate authority did not apply its mind to the appeal of the petitioner. Respondents in their counter-affidavit have reiterated the findings arrived at by the enquiring authority and have contended that the principles of natural Justice have been fully complied with in the conduct of enquiry proceedings and the passing of the order by the appellate authority.
9. According to the respondents, 9 charges have been already proved against the petitioner in a fresh departmental enquiry held by the enquiring authority and the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority have agreed with the findings of the enquiring authority and since the charges proved against the petitioner were grave and serious in nature, the appropriate punishment was awarded to the petitioner which is commensurate to the misconduct proved against him.
10. In his rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has averred that the copy of the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer was not provided to him, copies of material prosecution documents relied and used against the petitioner were neither shown, nor copies thereof were supplied to him and the enquiry was not conducted by Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, rather by Sri K. Radhakrishnan, an officer of the Bank who was subordinate to the appointing and disciplinary authority and was promoted to the higher rank immediately after the submission of the report against the petitioner. It was reiterated that Sri M. K. Dhodapkar. Dy. Branch Inspector was a corrupt and dishonest person and enquiry should not have been initiated on his report.
11. We have heard the learned counsel of parties at some length and have also gone through the record of the case.
12. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the enquiry should have been conducted by the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries who was an I.A.S. Officer. There is no dispute that originally the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, New Delhi was appointed as an enquiring authority against the petitioner who had submitted his report on 15th March, 1982 holding that 9 charges were established beyond doubt against the petitioner. Accepting the said report of the enquiring authority, the order of dismissal from service was passed. This order of dismissal was, however, quashed in the Writ Petition No. 5235 of 1986 and a direction was given that the respondents will hold the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner from the stage at which it was to be held on January 30, 1982 and shall complete the enquiry within a period of three months. There was no direction whatsoever that the enquiring officer will remain the same. It is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority to make appointment of an enquiring officer. It is the categorical stand of the respondents that since the Commissioner of departmental enquiries was not available, the disciplinary authority had no option but to appoint another enquiring officer and it was in these circumstances that Sri K. Radhakrishnan was appointed the enquiring authority. No mala fide intention could be attributed, much less proved, by the petitioner in the appointment of enquiring officer. The mere fact that the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries was an officer of the I.A.S., it cannot be said that the enquiring authority could not have been changed. Merely because the enquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary authority was a departmental officer, it cannot be said that he was under the influence of the disciplinary authority, or that he acted as a stooge of the respondents. The change of the enquiring authority in the circumstances of this case is of no importance, nor does it confer advantage on the petitioner. Sri K. Radhakrishnan, the enquiring authority was an officer superior in rank to the petitioner and there seems to be no illegality or irregularity having been committed by the disciplinary authority in appointing him as the enquiring authority to conduct departmental proceedings against the petitioner. We find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the enquiring authority could not have been changed or that any malice or ill-will was involved in appointment of Sri K. Radhakrishnan as enquiring authority. We also find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the respondents did not have any authority to appoint Sri K. Radhakrishnan as enquiring authority.
13. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that Chief General Manager, Lucknow was not his appointing/disciplinary authority, inasmuch as his appointment was made by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India. According to the respondents, though the appointment of the petitioner as a Trainee Officer was made by the Executive Committee, but that does not in any manner make any difference as per Rule 3 (w) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975, the disciplinary authority is the authority specified as such by the Executive Committee from time to time. The Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India designated Chief General Manager as the disciplinary authority of the Officers in Grade 1st and Grade IInd and Staff Officers serving in a circle. Thus, it cannot be said that the Chief General Manager was not the disciplinary authority and could not have appointed enquiring authority or could not have passed the impugned order of removal. This question has since been finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Vijaya Kumar, ( 1990) 4 SCC 481, wherein it has been held that even though the appointment of an officer of State Bank of India was initially made by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India, the subsequent decision of the Executive Committee designating the Chief General Manager as the disciplinary authority is in no manner bad, and the Chief General Manager has the authority to award punishment. The contentions of the petitioner that the Chief General Manager was not competent to appoint an enquiring authority or to pass the order of punishment, do not have any merit, and the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit on that score.
14. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the copy of the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer was not provided to the petitioner by the enquiring authority, and, therefore, the enquiry report suffers from an infirmity. It may be seen that the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer was a mere preliminary enquiry report and the same was not relied on either by the enquiring authority or by the disciplinary authority. It was, therefore, not incumbent on the enquiring authority to provide a copy of the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer to the petitioner and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of non-supply of the copy of the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer.
15. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that papers referred to as S-38 in the departmental enquiry report were not shown to the petitioner, nor the copy thereof was provided to him. It may be seen that S-38 are nine special letters of Handia Branch, the details of which are as under :
Sl. No. Date
1. 4.7.1977
2. 20.7.1977
3. 5.4.1978
4. 11.4.1978
5. 12.4.1978
6. 13.4.1978
7. 17.4.1978
8. 28.4.1978
9. 5.5.1978 These letters were filed before the previous enquiring authority on 14th December, 1981. It was mentioned in the order sheet dated 14.12.1981 that the petitioner had inspected all the documents with the exception of loan agreements pertaining to M/s. Bharat Carpet Emporium and M/s. Carpetiers and Exporters and the B.M.D.P. statement file and Trust letter file. This order sheet thus makes it clear that the petitioner did not raise any objection that he was not shown the letters referred to above which were written by his successor right from the date the petitioner handed over charge and his successor A. B. Mathur took over charge of Handia Branch of the State Bank of India. It may be seen that these documents were inspected by the petitioner in the presence of the enquiring authority on 21.6.91. Sri A . B. Mathur, successor of the petitioner was examined to prove these letters and other documents on 22nd June of 1991 and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Sri A. B. Mathur. It, therefore, cannot be said that the papers collectively termed as S-38 were not shown to the petitioner on any date. These papers were mere reports by the successor about the irregularity committed by the petitioner during his tenure as Branch Manager of Handia Branch and these letters as such do not establish the irregularities committed by the petitioner, nor the same have been so used by the enquiring authority. These papers were mere informations sent by the successor of the petitioner to the higher authorities, and, therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner in defending himself particularly when these documents were in the knowledge of the petitioner for about ten years and which were shown to the petitioner by Sri K. Radhakrishnan, the enquiring authority and more so when the witness who was produced to prove the letters S-38, was made available to the petitioner for cross-examination. Hence we find no merit in the contention that the petitioner was not shown the letters S-38 or that he was in any manner prejudiced by the non-production of these letters.
16. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was denied the opportunity to file papers in rebuttal. It may be seen that the petitioner had produced as many as 201 defence documents and as such it is not possible to say that the defence was not permitted to produce the papers or was denied any opportunity to file the papers in rebuttal. When the petitioner had filed 201 papers in defence, he could have filed any number of papers in his defence upto 22nd July. 1991 when he had submitted his defence brief. We are, therefore, of the view that it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied any opportunity to file papers in rebuttal of any papers filed on behalf of the Bank.
17. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was denied the opportunity of personal hearing. It may be seen that in the enquiry before Sri K. Radhakrishnan, the petitioner as well as his representative were present and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not afforded any personal hearing by the enquiring authority. So far as the personal hearing by the disciplinary authority is concerned, the same was never asked for and it was only on 11.9.1993 after the order of removal was passed that the petitioner demanded the personal hearing. There was no point for granting the opportunity of personal hearing after the order of removal had already been passed by the disciplinary authority. We are, therefore, of the view that this argument also lacks merit.
18. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that Sri. M. K. Dhodapkar. Dy. Branch Inspector had made the report against the petitioner on account of corrupt motive. The reports made by the Dy. Branch Inspector have not been taken into consideration by the inquiring authority, rather 9 of the 11 charges framed against the petitioner were proved by oral as well as documentary evidence. The Dy. Branch Inspector was neither a witness, nor did he prepared any documents which could have resulted in the proving of the charges against the petitioner. It appears that simply because the Dy. Branch Inspector made reports to the higher authorities against the conduct of the petitioner in relation to Handia Branch of the State Bank of India, the petitioner has attributed motives to him. The petitioner in any case has attributed motive not only to the Dy. Branch Inspector but almost to every authority which had passed orders adverse to him, and, therefore, the allegations against Sri M. K. Dhodapkar are the result of the annoyance of the petitioner.
19. Much emphasis was laid by the petitioner on the enquiry having been conducted by an officer of the Bank. The disciplinary enquiries by and large are conducted only by the departmental officers and simply because the enquiry against the petitioner was also conducted by an officer of the Bank itself, it cannot be said that the enquiry is vitiated. No doubt, earlier an enquiry was conducted by an I.A.S. Officer who was Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries and was an outsider but since he was not available, the enquiry had to be entrusted to an officer of the Bank. At this stage, it may not be out of place to mention that even the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries had found 9 of the 11 charges established against the petitioner though that enquiry report cannot be read for any purpose now and is of no consequence at this stage.
20. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that it is a mercy petition and the petitioner should be given some relief, inasmuch as he was about to complete 58 years, the age of superannuation. It may be seen that the petitioner has once got the benefits of pay and allowances without putting in any work for about seven years with effect from 15.5.84 to 2.4.91 and now deserves no sympathy particularly when he has been awarded a lesser penalty of removal. In fact the petitioner has only been dealt with in accordance with law. He has been given full and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in accordance with the established procedure.
21. A faint attempt was made during the course of arguments that the punishment awarded to him is not commensurate with the misconduct proved against him. We, however, are of the opinion that the quantum of punishment, even though not reviewable by the Courts, does not in the present case seem to be in any manner harsh. The charges against the petitioner relate to indiscriminate and flagrant violations of the rules, procedure and norms in making advances and granting cash credit limits, conducting himself in a highly negligent manner and entering into pecuniary transactions with the customers of Bank for his own benefit and absenting from duty without obtaining leave. In the above set of proved facts we come to the conclusion that the punishment is commensurate with the charges proved.
22. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for any interference whatsoever and that the present petition is devoid of merit.
23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs: