IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary action in banking requires adherence to high standards of integrity, and loss of confidence justifies severe penalties, including removal from service.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. S. Banik, and Mr. G. Khandalia, learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned standing counsel, State Bank of India(SBI), appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment & order, dated 21.01.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)302/2014, dismissing the same by refusing to interfere with the order of penalty of “Removal from Service” as imposed upon the appellant on conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding so instituted against him.

3. The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under:

During the tenure of the appellant as the Branch Manager of Lunglei Branch of State Bank of India(SBI), certain allegations having been levelled against him pertaining to the manner of sanction and disbursal of the Housing Loans; a charge sheet came to be issued to him on 08.02.2010, instituting a disciplinary proceeding against him.

In the said charge sheet, dated 08.02.2010; 3(three) allegations came to be so levelled against the appellant, herein, and basing on the said allegations, the appellant was charged of not having discharged his duties with utmost devotion, diligence and of violating the provisions of Rule 68(2) (iv) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules . The appellant, herein, submitted his written statement in the matter on 02.03.2010, and denied the allegations so levelled against him.

The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation as set-out in the written statement so submitted by the appellant, herein; directed for holding of an inquiry in the matter.

On conclusion of the inquiry; the Inquiring Authority submitted his inquiry report and therein, held the allegations No. 1 & 3, so levelled against the appellant, herein, to have been not proved while the allegation No. 2 so levelled against him, was held to be proved.

The disciplinary authority while forwarding to the appellant, herein, the inquiry Report, vide communication, dated 03.01.2011, had also forwarded a disagreement note with regard to the conclusions reached by the Inquiring Authority in respect of allegation No. 3.

In terms of the said disagreement note, the allegation No. 3 was held to be proved against the appellant, herein.

The appellant, on 08.02.2011, submitted a representation against the inquiry report as well as the disagreement note of the disciplinary authority pertaining to the allegation No. 3.

In the representation, dated 08.02.2011, the appellant, herein, had not dealt with the conclusions of the Inquiring Authority pertaining to the allegation No.2.

The appointing authority, thereafter, vide communication, dated 06.05.2011, proposed to impose a major penalty of “Removal from Service” upon the appellant, herein, and accordingly, required him to appear before the appointing authority on 17.05.2011, for a personal hearing and/or to make submissions, if any.

The appellant, herein, on 17.05.2011, while appearing before the appointing authority, submitted a representation, and therein; had prayed to not impose upon him, the penalty of “Removal from Service”.

The appointing authority, thereafter, on consideration of the inquiry report as well as the representation so submitted by the appellant, herein, in the matter; was pleased vide order, dated 21.05.2011, to impose upon the appellant, herein, the penalty of “Removal from Service” under the provisions of Rule 67(i) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules .

The appeal so preferred by the appellant, herein, against the order, dated 21.05.2011, was, on consideration, rejected by the appellate authority vide order, dated 08.09.2011.

The appellant, thereafter, approached