PRASANNA KUMAR NAIK Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner passed High School Certificate Examination in 1976 from Government High School, Tikabali, district Phulbani. He obtained M. A. Degree from Government College, Phulbani in the year 1981. Thereafter, he joined the State Bank of India, opposite party No. 1, as a cashier-cum-clerk with effect from March 6, 1982 after being selected on merit in written as well as viva vice test. He was selected in the quota assigned to Schedule Caste candidates as he produced a certificate issued to him by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baliguda on September 7, 1981 vide Annexure-1. While he was serving as cashiercum-clerk, a departmental proceeding was drawn up against him. The charge- sheet dated March 18, 1987 is at Annexure-2. He was charged of, committing gross misconduct in terms of" paragraph 521 (4) (j) of the Sastry Award, read with paragraph 18. 28 of the Desai Award by producing a false certificate showing that he belongs to Scheduled Caste (Pano) community, though he was actually a Christian. Show-cause was submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-3 in which he took the stand that the caste certificate was issued to him by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baliguda, after proper inquiry. According to him, another caste certificate had also been issued by the District Welfare Officer, Phubani, in the year 1979 after due inquiry in R. M. C. Case No. 2492 dated June 27, 1979. His explanation was not, accepted and a proper departmental proceeding was started. He was informed that he would not be allowed to engage a lawyer and would not be permitted to be represented by more than one officer. His personal prayer to the Enquiry Officer for engaging a lawyer was rejected. The inquiry was held in which no witness was examined on behalf of the Bank. The Enquiry Officer relied on the certificate issued by the Principal of the Government College, Phulbani, vide Annexure-5 and also the certificate issued by the Headmaster of the Government High School, Tikabali, vide Annexure-6. The confidential letter issued by the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baliguda dated August 3, 1988 (Annexure-7) and the confidential latter of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baliguda dated August 11, 1988 (Annexure-8) was also relied on by the Enquiry Officer. The above documents were shown to the petitioner at the time of inquiry, but he was not allowed copies of the same. According to the petitioner, he had no knowledge of the certificates vide Annexure-5 and 6 before he attended the inquiry. He has also alleged that the above certificates and letters were issued without proper inquiry. The petitioner also produced a certificate granted to his father on September 8, 1988 by the Headmaster, U. G. M. E. School, Baliguda, Phulbani, as at Annexure- 9. Two Pattas pertaining to land owned by the petitioner's family were also produced vide Annexure-9 (i) and 9 (ii ). The first Patta shows that the father of the petitioner, Parichha Digal, belongs to Pano community, and, in the second Patta, the father's brother of the petitioner has been described as a member of the Scheduled Caste 'pano' community. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner examined five witnesses to prove that he is a Hindu. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer did not take into consideration the evidence adduced/produced by him. Another allegation of the petitioner is that he was actually cross-examined during the inquiry and no reasonable opportunity was given to him to show or prove that he belongs to Scheduled Caste 'pano' community.

(2.) THE Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority and punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to him, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. Hence the present petition.

(3.) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT has been filed on behalf of the Bank wherein it has been stated that the punishment of dismissal was passed in accordance with the stipulations contained in the Sastry Award after careful consideration of all the materials on record by the disciplinary authority. The plea of the petitioner that he had made an oral prayer to engage a lawyer has been denied. It has been stated that neither the petitioner gave it in writing nor did he make an oral request to this effect. Reference has been made to the documents annexed to the writ petition and it has been stated that these documents prove that the petitioner does not' belong to Scheduled Caste 'panno' community and he is a Christian by religion. The writ petition and the annexure would go to show that the petitioner is a Christian by religion even before entering into school and college, and, therefore, there is not dispute that he cannot get the advantage of Scheduled Caste quota. It has been stated that the District Magistrate, Phulbani, cancelled the earlier certificate with the knowledge of the petitioner and this cancellation order was supplied to the petitioner after issuing the show-cause notice to him. Reference has been made to the letters of the District Magistrate, Phulbani dated November 9, 1990 and March 22, 1991 vide Annexure-B and C.