- (1.) This appeal is preferred by the State Bank of India against the decision of the Gauhati High court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.
(2.) The respondent was appointed as a cashier in the appellant bank in the year 1968. He was promoted to Officer Grade-11 and then to Grade-1. While he was working at Phek Branch in Nagaland, he was promoted to the rank of Branch Manager and was transferred to Amarpur Branch in the State of Tripura in January 1981. The appellant joined at Amarpur and claimed certain amount by way of reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him in shifting his belongings and other articles to Amarpur from Phek. An inquiry was made into the correctness of the receipts and other documents produced by him in that connection (and into some other alleged irregularities committed by him) and he was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry on five charges. The charges read as follows: "Charge 1 That on 10/02/1982, you submitted a Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12,194.80 in connection with your permanent transfer from Phek Branch to Amarpur Branch. In the said bill you make a claim of Rs. 9,500. 00 being the hiring charges incurred by you for a full truck and in support of your claim you submitted a false money receipt dated 9/01/1982 for Rs. 9,500. 00 obtained from M/s Balram Hariram, Church Road, Dimapur, whereas you neither engaged a full truck nor spent Rs. 9,500. 00 for the transport of household goods. By your above act you failed 'to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and have violated Rule 32 (4 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. Charge II That in your Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12,194.80 dated 10/02/1982 you made another claim for Rs. 120. 00 supported by two false separate money receipts dated 9/02/1982 for Rs. 60. 00 each obtained from one Shri Ram Prasad being the loading and unloading charges incurred for household goods at Phek and Amarpur respectively. By your above act again you have failed to discharge your duties with 540 utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and violated Rule 32 (4 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. Charge III That along with the Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12,194.80 dated 10/02/1982 you furnished a list of 19 packages of household items claimed to have been transported from Phek to Amarpur whereas only 8 packages of household goods were transported. Thus you knowingly furnished an inflated list of goods transported with an intention to derive undue pecuniary benefit and thereby infringed Rule 32 (4 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. Charge IV That during the period of your posting at our Phek Branch your S. B. Account thereat showed frequent deposits by means of cash as well as transfer transactions. These deposits and various T. D. Rs" S. T. D. Rs. and other assets acquired as detailed in the Statement of Allegation enclosed herewith, indicate that you were having assets disproportionate to your known sources of income the fact which reflect adversely on your conduct with is unbecoming of a bank official and thus you infringed Rule 32 (4 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. Charge V That while you were holding temporary charge of the Phek Branch you disbursed a construction loan to Shri Asong Snock in two instalments i. e. Rs. 90,000. 00 on 7/05/1981 i. e. as soon as you received the sanction from Regional Office and Rs. 10,000. 00 on 10/05/1981, without taking into account the progress of the construction of the building as instructed by Regional Office. The said loan was not utilised for the construction of the building and as a result of which the account had become irregular. Thus you have infringed Rules 32 (1, 32 (4 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. "
(3.) An Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority (the Chief General Manager) who held, after due inquiry that all the five charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority perused the entire material and agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on charges 1, 2, 3 and 5 but did not agree with the finding on charge 4. He imposed the penalty of removal upon the respondent. An appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Board whereupon the respondent approached the High court by way of a writ petition. The High court allowed the writ petition on three grounds, namely (1 non-supply of Inquiry Officer's report before imposing the penalty vitiates the order of punishment, (2 the appellate order is not a speaking order and is therefore not in conformity with Rule 51 (2 of the S. B. I. (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules and (3 the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority on charges 1 to 3 and 5 are based on no evidence and must therefore be characterised as perverse.;