Disciplinary Authority must consider employee objections before concluding proceedings; failure to do so renders the process illegal.

ORDER :

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of First Respondent herein in proceedings of the First Respondent issued, DM HUB(S)/TRI/SMS/2024-25/3140 dated 04.12.2024, DM HUB(S)/TRI/ISN/2024-25/3410 dated 30.12.2024 and quash the same and to issue directions to the Respondents herein to grant the revision of subsistence allowance along with the arrears on the basis of 11^th tripartie settlement as well as according to Rule 68(A)(7)(ii) of the SBI Officers Services Rules 1992 and to pass orders.

2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner who is holding the post of Manager in the State Bank of Travancore was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and charge memo was issued to him. Thereafter enquiry was conducted and the final report of the Inquiry Authority was communicated to the first respondent on 28.08.2020. Pursuant to which the petitioner was imposed with the major penalty of dismissal of service in terms of Rule 67(J) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules (SBIOSR) vide order DMHUB(S)/TRI/KR/2020-21/174 dated 07.10.2020 by the first respondent. Challenging the report of the Inquiry Authority dated 28.08.2020 and the dismissal order passed by the first respondent on 07.10.2020 the petitioner filed W.P.No.15016 and 15017 of 2020 and this Court allowed the writ petition on 01.08.2024. The operative portion of the said Judgment is as follows:

19. In the light of the above, the impugned communications dated 28.08.2020 and 07.10.2020 are liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary and accordingly, the impugned communications are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, they are quashed. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority is directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner through his representation dated 08.09.2020 against the report of the Inquiring Authority dated 27.08.2020 and then take further steps in accordance with law. The petitioner is also granted liberty to submit any further objections, if any, against the report of the Inquiring Authority, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, if any such objections are submitted by the petitioner within the time stipulated above, the Disciplinary Authority / first respondent shall take into consideration such objections also along with the objection already raised earlier through the representation dated 08.09.2020 and take further steps to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. It is made clear that the Disciplinary Authority while deciding the matter as above, shall not take into consideration nor be influenced by the views that were already expressed by him on 28.08.2020.

3. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court the first respondent instructed the petitioner to express his views on the enquiry report on 29.08.2024 and the petitioner also submitted his representation through the second respondent on 12.09.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to submit to make submissions, if any, and the petitioner also submitted his representation on 22.10.2024. When things stood this, the first respondent vide order dated 04.12.2024 in DM HUB(S)/TRI/SMS/2024-25/3140 directed the petitioner that if the petitioner desires to make any submissions, he can do so within seven days from the receipt of this letter. A suitable decision will be taken after examining the same. The petitioner was further directed that if he did not make any submission, it will be construed that the petitioner has no submission to make, and the Bank would be at liberty to proceed further in th