Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.R. SARANGI, J.
Arjuna Charan Mishra - Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India and Ors. - Respondents
O.J.C. No. 2181 of 2002
Decided On : 05-09-2019
Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceedings - State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules - Rule 49, Rule 50 - Violation of Natural Justice - Quashing of Orders
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Branch Manager at State Bank of India, seeks to quash disciplinary orders imposed on him for alleged misconduct in loan sanctioning and disbursement. The petitioner denied the charges and requested relevant documents for defense, which were not supplied. The inquiring officer proceeded without supplying the documents and submitted a report finding the petitioner guilty of some charges. The disciplinary authority accepted the report without serving a copy to the petitioner and imposed a penalty. The petitioner's appeal and review were dismissed, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary orders were passed in violation of natural justice and the Staff Rules. The failure to supply relevant documents and the imposition of penalties without proper hearing were deemed as gross violations. The court also highlighted discrepancies in the findings of the inquiring officer and the disciplinary authority, indicating procedural irregularities.
Issues: The issues revolved around the violation of natural justice, non-compliance with the Staff Rules, discrepancies in findings, and the imposition of penalties without proper hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice and the relevant rules. It highlighted the importance of providing the accused with relevant documents and a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The court also stressed the need for consistency in findings and reasoned decision-making by the disciplinary authority.
Final Decision: The court quashed the disciplinary orders, citing violations of natural justice and the Staff Rules.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
1. The petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Satkosia Branch in the district of Mayurbhanj, by way of this writ application, seek to quash the orders dated 17.08:1988 passed by opposite party No. 1-Chief General Manager, State Bank of India (disciplinary authority) in Annexue-7, dated 11.06.1990 passed by the appellate authority-opposite party No. 5 in Annexure-9; and dated 20.08.2001 passed by opposite party No. 6-reviewing authority in Annexure-13 imposing and confirming the punishment inflicted on him in a departmental proceeding by violating the norms and procedures prescribed in the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, (for short 'Staff Rules') and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, i.e., non-compliance of the principle of natural justice.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner, while working as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Satkosia Branch in the district of Mayurbhanj, was served with a memorandum of charges under Rule 50(1)(i) of the Staff Rules on 28.05.1986 to the following effect:
(ii) In many cases loans were sanctioned for purchase of goatery units/bullocks, whereas no assets were purchased. The disbursements were made in cash contravening the laid down instructions.
(iii) The Petitioner accepted illegal gratification from number of borrowers and committed irregularities mentioned.
(iv) The Petitioner debited the total project cost to the loan accounts without receiving permissible subsidy from the concerned Government body. Therefore, he has deviated from the laid down procedure to collect the subsidy amount in advance as a result, interest burden on the borrower increased.
(v) Some loan accounts credits were made few weeks after raising the debits. It was therefore concluded that the Petitioner had with him duly signed forms and deposit vouchers, which he had been putting to use as and when required."
In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his show-cause/explanation denying all the charges levelled against him, on receipt of which, inquiring officer was appointed. During course of enquiry, the petitioner, vide letter dated 30.09.1986, requested the inquiring officer to supply him relevant documents to prepare his written statement of defence. In the said letter, the petitioner also indicated that he had not verified certain documents produced by the presenting officer and requested to allow him five days time for the said purpose", and also for supply of the documents requisitioned therein. But the inquiring officer did not supply the requisitioned documents to him. The petitioner again, vide letter dated 29.05.1987, requested the inquiring officer for supply of some documents, on which reliance was placed, and the inquiring officer, without allowing the said application, directed the concerned authorities to produce the available documents only, and accordingly the documents, which were called for by the petitioner, were not supplied to him. The inquiring officer proceeded with the enquiry proceeding without supplying the documents, as requested by the petitioner, and without affording opportunity of adequate hearing to defend his case properly, submitted his report on 30.11.1987 as follows:
(ii) Charge No. 2 was partially proved holding that disbursements were made by cash contravening the laid down norms.
(iii) Charge No. 3 was not proved.
(iv) Charge No. 4 was fully proved.
(v) Charge No. 5 was partially
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
