The disciplinary and appellate authorities must consider the petitioner's contentions and apply their minds when passing orders. The entitlement to back wages is discretionary and should be determined by the disciplinary authority after the conclusion of the fresh enquiry.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 16/26.06.2010 (signed on 26.6.2010) passed by Assistant General Manager (Admin.)-cum-Disciplinary Authority, disciplinary Proceeding Cell, State Bank of India Administrative office, Purnia, whereby and whereunder, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed a penalty upon the petitioner of “Removal from Bank’s service with superannuation benefits as would e due otherwise and without disqualification from future employment” under para 6(b) of memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002 on disciplinary action for workmen staff with forfeitures of payment of gratuity to the extent of Rs. 40,000/-in terms or section 4 Sub-section 6(a) of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

As well as for quashing of the order passed by the Deputy General Manager (O&C, NW-1) (Appellate Authority) State Bank of India Disciplinary Proceeding Section, Administrative Office J.C. Road, Patna dated 12.10.2010, whereby and whereunder the Appellate Authority has set aside the order of Disciplinary Authority and partially modify the punishment order the same as under “Removal from service with superannuation benefits i.e. person and or/provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and Regulations and without disqualification from future employment under Clause 6(d) of Memorandum of settlement on Disciplinary Action procedure for workman staff dated 10.4.2002 with immediate effect”

Both the orders one being passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 17/26.06.2010 and other by the Appellate Authority dated 12.10.2010 supported by the speaking order of the respective dates.”

3. The petitioner was subjected to parallel proceedings in respect of certain alleged misdeeds which is stated to have been committed by the petitioner. In the criminal proceedings, ‘B’ report was filed on 30.11.2007 and it was accepted on 27.03.2010 whereas in the disciplinary proceedings petitioner was punished while imposing the penalty of removal from service.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of removal from service, the petitioner submitted appeal. In the appeal, appellate authority has modified the penalty order while affirming removal penalty and further ordering that petitioner is entitled to certain service benefits including monetary benefits. Still aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority, petitioner has presented this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that punishment order suffers from non-consideration of petitioners various contentions urged in the reply to the second show cause notice dated 26.05.2010. It is further submitted that appellate authority has also not considered the petitioner's memorandum of appeal in true spirit as there is not even reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in his memorandum of appeal and discussed and rejected. In other words, it is submitted that both the disciplinary and appellate authority’s orders are unreasoned. It is also submitted that in not considering the petitioner's each of the contention raised by him in the reply to the second show cause notice which would amount to empty formality in issuance of show cause notice and seeking explanation from the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent resisted the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and submitted that having regard to the charges and the charges were proved in enquiry. The disciplinary authority need not elaborately consider in his order if he has taken note of enquiring officer’s report that suffice. It is further submitted that appellate authority has also considered the view of the disciplinary authority and found that there is no merit in the memorandum of appeal preferred by the petitioner.

7. Heard learned counsels for