The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the respondent Bank to strictly adhere to its own rules and regulations in conducting disciplinary proceedings, and the limitation on directing a fresh inquiry to be conducted by another officer.

Meruno, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.N Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant and Mr. S.S Sarma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mrs. Suparna Nag, learned counsel, for the respondents State Bank of India.

2. In support of his case, Mr. K.N Choudhury, learned senior counsel, has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court, as reported in (1987) 4 SCC 611, (1993) 3 SCC 631, and AIR 1971 SC 1447. However, Mr. S.S Sarma, learned senior counsel, has not placed any decision in support of his case before this Court.

3. The brief facts before the learned Single Judge in WP(c) 256(AP)2010 has been narrated in Paragraph No. 3 of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.03.2011 and the same is detailed herein below for ready reference :

3. The relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time, was serving as Deputy Head Cashier at Itanagar Bench of the State Bank of India. A charge sheet dated 05.03.2001 was served upon the petitioner leveling certain allegations against him. He submitted reply on 31.03.2001 denying all the charges. The disciplinary authority found the reply unsatisfactory and decided to hold enquiry against him and appointed an Enquiry Officer on 23.10.2001 and also one Presenting Officer on 31.01.2003. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority but the same was not furnished to the petitioner. However, he could gather that none of the allegations have been found proved and he was exonerated of the charges. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 17.10.2003 directed to hold de novo enquiry against him on the same charges. At the same time, the petitioner was transferred to Guwahati. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was originally registered as WP(c) No. 9143/2003 at the Principal Seat and renumbered as WP(c) No. 387(AP)2003 pm transfer at Itanagar Bench, challenging the legality and justification for holding a de novo enquiry. The said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 03.06.2005 with direction that the Bank shall complete the enquiry within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Against the said judgment and order, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal, being W.A. No. 51(AP)2006, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 26.04.2007 holding that the de novo enquiry was not appropriate and directing the disciplinary authority to hold further enquiry by permitting the parties to adduce additional evidence, both oral and documentary, as may be relevant to prove or disprove the charges.

Thereafter, the disciplinary authority appointed a new Enquiry Officer who was on the verge of retirement. The regular hearing of the fresh enquiry commenced from 28.05.2009 and the said new Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 27.06.2009 holding 6 out of 9 charges as proved against the petitioner. On being furnished a copy of the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted representation dated 11.08.2009 against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry authority passed an order on 10.09.2009 against the petitioner imposing penalty/punishment of removal from service. He submitted an appeal on 05.10.2009 before the appellate authority against the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority but the same was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.03.2009.

4. We have heard the learned senior counsels, above noted, assisted by their juniors, appearing on behalf of their respective parties, at length, perused the cited cases, documents as well as judgment & order put under challenge.

5. After adequately hearing the parties and perusal of the documents, noted above, we are of the considered view that since the limited issue to be considered by us, as involved in this writ appeal, is the question of appointment of a new Enquiry Off