OD-1 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/38/2019 KALYAN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA VS STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date : January 17, 2025 Appearance:

Mr. Anirban Majumder, Adv. Mr. Rittick Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Sayantan Mullick, Adv. ,,,for the petitioner Mr. Subrata Kr. Sinha, Adv. Mr. S. Pal Chaudhuri, Adv., Ms. T. Paul, Adv. Ms. S. Paul, Adv.

.…for the respondents The Court: The petitioner was an employee of State Bank of India who joined in the bank on 12th August, 1969. During the tenure of his service, he was promoted to Scale– I in the cadre as of Branch Manager. He was posted as a Branch Manager, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Calcutta. A spot audit was conducted on 17th June, 1996 by the concerned Vigilance Department of the Bank allegedly drawing serious irregularities in D.D. purchase and in overdrafts in current account of its constituents M/s. Seraikella Glass Works Limited. On 2nd August, 1996, the petitioner was suspended under the provisions of Rule 68A(1)(a) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules.

Reply was made by the petitioner with the contention that all the acts were done in good faith. However, the reply of the petitioner was not considered and articles of charges were framed and served upon the petitioner. There were ten articles of charges, on the basis of which disciplinary proceeding was initiated. The disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order on 28th September, 2001. The authority has passed the order as follows:

“I, General Manager (D&PB), as the Appointing Authority, have carefully examined the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiring Authority appointed to conduct the Inquiry in respect of the charges levelled against Shri K. K. Bhattacharya, all the relevant papers of the Inquiry and the submission of Shri Bhattacharya dated 26.06.2001 on the Inquiry Report.

2. The Inquiring Authority has held that out of the 10 (ten) charges levelled against Shri Bhattacharya, charge Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(a), 5(b) and 10 have been proved, charge No.6 has been partly proved while charge Nos. 7, 8 and 9 have not been proved. I agree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority. I observe that Shri Bhattacharya allowed clean overdraft of huge amount far exceeding his discretionary powers without proper appraisal or documentation and without reporting the matter to the Controlling Authority. He also negotiated high value cheques beyond his discretionary powers some of which were returned unpaid but were not debited to the relevant account. He has, thus, acted in a reckless manner highly detrimental to the Bank’s interests and has exposed the Bank to a financial loss of more than Rs.2.50 crores. After having applied my free and fair mind independently to the full facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if Shri K.K. Bhattacharya, MMGS-III, (under suspension), is inflicted with the penalty of “Dismissal” under Rule 67(j) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules and I order accordingly. I further order that the period of his suspension with effect from 03.08.1996 be treated as such.”

Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has approached before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after hearing the petitioner has passed the order whereby affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority as follows:

“8. Having gone through the appeal made by Shri Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharya and the relevant documents that have led to the Disciplinary Authority impose the punishment of “Dismissal” under Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules (SBIOSR), I observe that the inquiry has been held strictly in conformity with the Rules; the principle of natural justice have been respected. The penalty decision has been arrived at after due application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. I am also in agreement with the fi