Dismissal for misconduct in banking, despite no financial loss, is justified to maintain integrity and trust; procedural irregularities alone do not negate findings unless they cause specific prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. The petitioner, a long-serving and dedicated officer of the State Bank of India, commenced his career as an Agricultural Assistant on 14th October, 1977, at the Jangipur Branch and, through consistent diligence and integrity, rose to the post of Chief Manager (SMGS-IV), lastly serving at the Dhakuria Branch, Kolkata. His tenure, marked by unblemished service, was abruptly interrupted when he was placed under suspension by the respondent authorities on 23rd November, 2012, under Rule 68(A)(1) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules (SBIOSR), in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.

2. Subsequently, a memorandum of charge-sheet dated 15th March, 2013, was issued, imputing six charges against the petitioner, primarily alleging fraudulent manipulation of entries relating to issuance of an 8% RBI Savings Bond in 2006, unauthorised credit of 5,00,000/- to his own account, and irregular payments to one Chandra Sekhar Chatterjee. The gravamen of the allegations was that the petitioner, while functioning as Manager (Accounts & Administration) at Asansol Branch, had asted in gross negligence and in violation of Rule 50(4) of the SBIOSR.

3. The petitioner, while denying all allegations, laid bare the factual substratum in which the alleged events occurred. It was urged that in 2006, the petitioner had been facing dire personal and financial distress owing to the grave illness of both his parents-his mother suffering from cancer and his father being bedridden. Depleted of resources, the petitioner had approached all lawful avenues for financial assistance to no avail. In such vulnerable circumstances, one Chandra Sekhar Chatterjee, a known customer, offered to extend a temporary loan of 5,00,000/- with a peculiar condition that the amount be routed through the Bank as a notional investment in 8% RBI Savings Bonds, with the petitioner, obligated to pay periodic interest and to refund the principal upon maturity.

4. It was contended that, under bona fide belief and without any intent to defraud or cause pecuniary loss to the Bank, the petitioner issued the Bond and appropriated the funds under the conviction that the arrangement was private and non-prejudicial to Bank interests. Significantly, the petitioner himself voluntarily disclosed the entire transaction to the Assistant General Manager of the Asansol Branch on 19th October, 2012-an act wholly inconsistent with fraudulent intent. Upon such disclosure, an internal enquiry was conducted by the Assistant General Manager, who categorically reported on 8th November, 2012, that no financial loss whatsoever had been sustained by the Bank, and that the petitioner's disclosure was the sole source through which the matter came to the Bank's knowledge.

5. Notwithstanding such exculpatory findings, the disciplinary machinery was set in motion. The Enquiry Officer, by his report dated 29th July, 2013, held all charges to be proved. The petitioner, in his detailed written statement of defence dated 25th July, 2013, denied the allegations, asserting that the enquiry was vitiated by procedural impropriety, bias, and non-consideration of material evidence. He further contended that the enquiry authority acted mechanically and with a pre-determined mind, disregarding his written and oral submissions, and his request for production of