Disciplinary proceedings cannot stand if the charges are identical to those in a criminal case where the accused has been acquitted, emphasizing the need for full disclosure of material facts in judicial proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner through the medium of the instant petition, is seeking quashment of order dated 01.04.2014, passed by respondent No. 3-Chief General Manager, Appellate Authority, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chandigarh, whereby penalty of “Compulsory Retirement” in terms of Rule 67(h) of State Bank of India Officers Service Regulations (SBIOSR) has been imposed upon the petitioner and also order dated 14.03.2018 passed by respondent no. 4-Reviewing Authority whereby his review petition has been rejected.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that while serving as Manager, SBI, Branch Bharmar, Himachal Pradesh, he came to be wrongly and falsely implicated in a corruption case and an FIR No. 1/2010 dated 09.01.2010 was registered with Police Station, State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau Dharamshalla, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner before the Court of learned Special Judge Kangra at Dharamshalla, District Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) on 06.07.2011. Following an extensive trial, the Court of learned Special Judge Kangraat Dharamshalla, District Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) vide judgment dated 15.09.2017, acquitted the petitioner of the charges leveled against him.

3. Simultaneously, after the registration of FIR against the petitioner, the respondents also initiated disciplinary action against him and framed the following three Articles of charges against him:-

a. “Charge no. 1

i. You did not follow Bank's laid down instructions in the matter of pre/post sanction, appraisal and sanction of advances.

b. Charge no.2

i. You were caught red headed by state Vigilance Deptt.While accepting bribe.

c. Charge No.3

i. You caused loss of Image to the Bank.”

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the Article of Charges and the respondents instead of dropping the charges against the petitioner, proceeded against the petitioner and appointed an Inquiry Officer on 03.02.2011. The said Inquiry Officer so appointed, proceeded with the inquiry against the charges framed against the petitioner and without properly evaluating the reply/defence submitted by the petitioner to the said charges and without there being any clinching evidence against the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry report on 31.03.2012, against the petitioner, wherein all the charges and allegations levelled against the petitioner were proved. It is stated that the criminal case was pending against the petitioner at the time when the inquiry proceedings were being conducted by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his representation against the report of Inquiring Authority before respondent No. 2, which according to the petitioner was not accorded due consideration by the respondents while proceeding against the petitioner.

5. It has been urged by Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 2, thereafter, without proper evaluating the reply submitted by the petitioner and evidence which has come on record proceeded to pass order dated 17.04.2013 and imposed penalty of “Dismissal” as a measure of punishment on the petitioner in terms of Rule 67 (j) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has dra