KASLIWAL - (1.) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2.) ALL the above cases are disposed of by one single order as identical questions of law are involved in all these cases. In order to appreciate the controversy, facts in brief are stated of all these cases. The respondent Vijaya Kumar was appointed as a Probationary Officer (Gr. 1 Officer) by an order of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India on 7-12-71. The respondent was chargesheeted in respect of gross irregularities and corrupt practices and was ultimately dismissed from service by an order dt. 22-12-88 passed bv the Chief General Manager of the Bank. Shri Vijaya Kumar filed a Writ Petition No. 194/83 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging his order of dismissal. A Division Bench of the High Court heard the writ petition along with Appeal No. 141/86 and allowed the writ petition but dismissed the writ appeal by order dated 26-11-87. The State Bank aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the High Court passed in Writ Petn. No. 194/83 has filed this writ petition only on one ground that the appointing authority of Vijaya Kumar was Executive Committee of the Bank and as such Chief General Manager being an authority lower than the appointing authority was not competent to pass an order of dismissal. In this case the respondent T. Dayakar Rao was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank of India in the month of October, 1962. in the month of July, 1971 he was selected as a Trainee Officer and was given job training at various branches of the Bank for two years. While he was working as a Bank Manager he was charge-sheeted for irregularities committed by him during the period 1-9-79 to 14-6-80. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 29-7-82. On 6-3-84 the Chief General Manager in the capacity of disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal. T. Dayakar Rao filed a Writ Petition No. 1204/ 84 in the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by an order dt. 13/08/1988 allowed the writ petition following the decision of Division Bench given in Writ Appeal No. 141/ 86 dated 26-11-87. The Bank aggrieved against the aforesaid order has filed the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
(3.) IN this case Shri A. K. Soundararajan appellant was appointed as Technical Officer by an order dated 14-6-68 of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank. It was mentioned in the order that Shri Soundararajan would be governed by the State Bank of INdia (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules. Post of Technical Officer was considered equivalent to Staff Officer Grade III under the Rules. He was suspended and given a charge-sheet on 23-4-82 and was dismissed by an order dated 31-3-83 passed by the Chief General Manager. Shri Soundararajan filed a Writ Petition No. 7108/ 85 in the High Court challenging his order of dismissal. Learned single Judge of the High Court by order dated 31-10-88 allowed the writ petition by following the decision given by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1204/ 84 in the case of T. Dayakar Rao. The State Bank aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench in this case took into consideration an amendment made in Regulation 55 by a resolution dated 25-8-88 made applicable with retrospective effect. The Division Bench by order dated 30/11/1989 allowed the appeal filed by the Bank. Shri A. K. Soundararajan aggrieved against the order of the High Court has filed this Special Leave Petition. It would be necessary to narrate the facts of SLP (C) No. 5139/ 88 (State Bank of India v. Hanumantha Rao) disposed of by an order of this Court dated 30/01/1990.;