S B AJGAONKAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS litigation has a chequered career and it is necessary to set out the fats to appreciate the four contentions urged at the hearing to challenge the order dated August 9, 1989 passed by Chief General Manager - Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of dismissal from Service on the petitioner in accordance with Rule 49 (h) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. The petitioner joined the services of the State Bank of India as a Clerk on February 24, 1954. In July 1965, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Clerk and on August 2, 1965, as Officer Grade II. On June 1, 1971, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Officer Grade I on probation. The appointment letter sets out that the appointment is made in pursuance of the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the Central Board on the recommendation of the local Board. Between December 1972 and March 1973, the petitioner was posted as a Branch Manager of the Shahapur Branch of State Bank of India. The Branch had extended facility of discounting of cheque to M/s. Jolly Brothers (P) Limited who had undertaken contract work in respect of construction of Bhatsa Dam from State of Maharashtra. The State Bank of India had initially sanctioned facility to the limit of Rs. 3,00,000/- and subsequently the facility was raised to Rs. 10 lakhs. The petitioner who was working as Branch Manage at Shahapur Branch could not have permitted M/s. Jolly Brothers (P) Limited to draw upon the facility in excess of limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Bank authorities came to know that the petitioner had discounted cheques in excess of the sanctioned limit and the payments of the earlier discounted cheques were not received from M/s. Jolly Brothers (P) Limited. The enquiries also revealed that M/s. Jolly Brothers (P) Limited had no fund in their accounts to meet the payments of the cheques discounted by the petitioner.

(2.) BY letter dated January 20, 1973, the Head Office of the State Bank of India specifically prohibited the petitioner from purchase of cheque in excess of the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Head Office also called upon the petitioner to forward advice every fortnight indicating the outstanding under the limit. The petitioner did not forward the information and render was sent on February 13, 1973. The petitioner sent reply on February 22, 1973 stating that the list of purchases made from M/s. Jolly Brothers (P) Limited is annexed to the letter. Infact, the petitioner did not enclose any annexures and subsequently claimed that the annexures were not enclosed due to heavy pressure of work. On March 3, 1973, the Head Office of the Bank informed the petitioner to stop any further purchases to the cheques till the account of M/s. Jolly Brothers was regularised. Despite the telegram, the petitioner purchased the cheque of M/s. Jolly Brother of an amount to Rs. 48,30,000/- on March 8, 1973 and for the sum of Rs. 48,72,000/- on March 13, 1973. It is not in dispute that the cheque dated March 13, 1973 was dishonoured. On March 28, 1973, the Bank authorities served an order of suspension on the petitioner. The Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank along with other Offices proceeded to Shahapur and conducted investigation between April 5 and April 14, 1973. The petitioner was questioned and statements were recorded. On April 15, 1973 which was a Sunday, the petitioner went to the residence of one of the vigilance Offices and gave in writing that the petitioner had received a television set of Toshiba Made as a present from M/s. Jolly Brothers. The petitioner also accepted that the payment of Rs. 3,100/- was received for clearance of the cheque. A further payment of Rs. 2,000/- in cash was admitted and so also a sum of Rs. 500/- from the constituent of the Bank. It is required to be stated at this juncture that subsequently the petitioner claimed that the letter was secured under duress because the petitioner was in an imbalanced state of mind.

(3.) ON July 17, 1973, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet containing four charges. The charges were :