GAHC010144002024

2025:GAU-AS:17582-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WA/262/2024

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 2 ORS

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,

CORPORATE CENTRE, IV FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAWAN, MADAME CAMA

ROAD, MUMBAI-400021.

2: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

STATE BANK OF INDIA

LOCAL HEAD OFFICE

DISPUR

GHY-6

DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM

3: GENERAL MANAGER (NW-II)

STATE BANK OF INDIA

LOCAL HEAD OFFICE

DISPUR

GHY-6

DIST KAMRUP M ASSA

VERSUS

OLYMPIA ROY AND ANR

W/O LATE ANIRBAN ROY, HOUSE NO-42, PANDAV NAGAR, ADABARI

TINIALI, GUWAHATI-781012, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

2:SRI ANINDIT ROY S/O- ANIRBAN ROY

H.NO. 42

PANDAV NAGAR

ADABARI TINIALI

GHY- 12

KAMRUP M ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MR. M SARMA,MR P BHARADWAJ

Advocate for the Respondent : , MR G GOSWAMI,FOR CAVEATOR BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

ORDER

Date : 18.12.2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J)

1. The present intra-court appeal is filed assailing judgment and order dated 13-05-2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in WPC 4647-2019. The challenge made in the writ petition was against a disciplinary proceeding initiated by a charge-sheet dated 14-12-2012, the Inquiry Report dated 24-12- 2015 and a Penalty Order of removal from service of the deceased delinquent with forfeiture of gratuity dated 16-05-2016 and also the rejection of appeal by the appellate authority dated 02-12-2016.

2. During the pendency of the writ proceeding, the delinquent expired on 5-11-2023 and was duly substituted by his legal heirs who are the appellants before this court.

3. The deceased employee was an Assistant Manager of Accounts in the Koupati Branch of the Respondent-Bank when the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him under Charge-sheet dated 14-12-2012. On completion of the inquiry, a second show-cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority, whereby the findings of guilt of the appellant were already concurred with. Though a reply was filed by the delinquent, an order of penalty dated 24-09-2013 was imposed by which, the deceased delinquent was dismissed from service and his gratuity was forfeited.

4. The departmental appeal of the deceased delinquent being rejected, he had approached this court by filing WPC 3941-2014, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the impugned penalty with a liberty to the employer to have a de novo inquiry.

5. Pursuant to such determination, a new Inquiry Officer and Presiding Officers were appointed and a report dated 24-12-2015 was submitted. A second show-cause notice was issued to the deceased delinquent on 31-12-2015, which was also agreed to by the disciplinary authority and five out of six allegations were held to be proved and one allegation was held to be partially proved.

6. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that no witnesses were examined, though one witness was subsequently named as a witness, however, he was not examined and the appellant did not have the chance to cross-

examine the aforesaid witness.

7. Accordingly, it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the employer found the charge to be proved without examination of any witnesses. The other contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that the second show-cause notice had become a mere formality as the delinquent was deprived of a fair opportunity to make an endeavour to convince the disciplinary authority to take a view other than the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer as they already agreed to the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

8. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition noticing that the earlier direction passed in WPC 3941-2014 was not adhered to, rather similar error was committed by the disciplinary authority inasmuch as the disciplinary authority while concurring with the findings of the Inquiry report and issuing the show-cause notice, acted contrary to the established procedure o