Advocates:
['M/S ASIM AMITAV DAS', '', 'A K BEHERA', 'M B RAY', 'M BEHERA', 'M/S S K RATH', 'B K PRADHAN', 'S RAY', 'D K MOHAPATRA', 'P V BALAKRISHNA']

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK

W.P.(C) NO.10677 OF 2003

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India.

----------

AFR

Mamatarani Mohanty …….…… Petitioners

& others

Versus

Managing Director (Personnel), …………. Opp. Parties

State Bank of India,

Central Office, Mumbai

And others

For petitioners : M/s. S.K. Rath and M. Behera,

Advocates

For opp. Parties : Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, Advocate

(O.Ps. No.2 and 3)

P R E S E N T :

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI

Date of hearing: 26.04.2017 | Date of judgment :04.05.2017

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.

The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased

employee late Balaram Mohanty, who was initially appointed as

Godown Keeper in State Bank of India, Cuttack Branch on

2

02.12.1970. Subsequently, he was promoted to the officer

cadre in the year 1978 and then to Middle Management Grade

(MMGS-II) on 01.08.1988 and posted at Jeypore Branch, Orissa.

2.

While the deceased employee was working as

MMGS-II, he was placed under suspension on 27.11.1992. A

memorandum of charges was communicated to him by the

authority on 18.12.1993, while he was working at Jeypore

Branch as Field Officer, that in terms of Rule-50 of State Bank of

India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975 (for short <Rules,

1975=) corresponding to new Rule 68(1) of State Bank of India

Officers Service Rules, 1992 (for short <Rules, 1992=) it had

been decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the

deceased employee in terms of Rule 50(2)(iii) of Rules, 1975

which corresponds to new Rule 62(2)(iii) of Rules, 1992 and

proposed to hold an inquiry against him. On the basis of

memorandum of charge, it was alleged that the deceased

employee

contravened

Rules

22(4)

and

34(3)(i)

which

correspond to new Rule 50(4) and 52(3) (i) of Rules, 1992.

3.

On being called upon to show cause, the deceased

employee submitted his reply on 03.07.1995. While denying all

the charges, the deceased employee stated that due to non-

3

supply of relevant documents/materials he could not able to file

comprehensive defence statement. Without considering the

same the Inquiry Officer continued the proceeding and

submitted his report on 05.10.1995 stating that imputations

no.1 and 2 were proved, imputations no.3(i) and (ii) were not

proved and imputation no.3(iii) was partly proved. Considering

such report, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of

removal from service on 29.07.1996 and treated the period of

suspension as such in terms of Rule 50(3)(iii) and 50-A (8)(ii) of

Rules, 1975 which correspond to new Rules 68(3)(iii) and 68-A

(8)(II) of Rules, 1992, which was communicated to the

deceased employee on 12.08.1997. Against the said order of

punishment, the deceased employee preferred appeal on

07.10.1996, but the appellate authority vide order dated

12.08.1997 confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority and rejected the appeal.

4.

Against the order dated 12.08.1997, the deceased

employee’s wife-petitioner no.1 on 15.09.1998 filed review

petition before the Reviewing Authority-Circle Development

Officer, State Bank of India. Without forwarding the review

application, the authority rejected the same on 31.07.1999.

4

When such defect was pointed out, the Circle Development

Officer, without forwarding the same to the competent

authority, passed another order on 10.04.01 stating that the

review was time barred. When petitioner no.1 approached for

pension and other pecuniary service benefits, the Circle

Development Officer, by observing that the deceased employee

had neither completed 50 years of age nor completed 25 years

of pensionable services, rejected the claim vide order dated