- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is preferred by the State Bank of India, Bombay, its Deputy Managing Director (Appellate Authority), Bombay and the Chief General Manager) (Disciplinary Authority), Madras against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 490 of 1998. By that judgment, the Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 10222 of 1991 dated 7-1-1998.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent joined service in the Bank of Cochin (the Bank has since been amalgamated with the State Bank of India w.e.f. 27-4-85) on 1-11-1996 and was promoted as an officer and then as Manager of the Madras Branch of the Bank of Cochin. The disciplinary action initiated against him related to 1977-1981 when he was working as Manager at Madras. On 25-8-81, he was transferred to Calcutta. He received letters of commendation dated 10-3-83 and 16-4-84 and his Branch at Calcutta stood at No. 1 in the matter of mobilisation of advances. It appears that some advances given by him while working as Manager at Madras during 1977-1981 could not be recovered and hence on 4-2-84, he was reposted at Madras for the purpose of recovering the advances. The respondent made substantial recoveries after his reposting in Madras but he was suspended on 13-7-1984 and served with a charge sheet on 18-9-1984 stating that he had given advances unauthorisedly without discretionary power/prior permission/observing lending norms and that his actions amounted to 'serious misconduct' which involved financial loss and violation of Head Office prescriptions with vested interest and causing wilful damage to the interests and affairs of the Bank. The respondent denied the charges in his reply dated 20-10-1984. A domestic inquiry was held by appointing an Advocate as Inquiry Officer. The respondent submitted his final explanation on 15-5-1985. On 3-8-1985 the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. He held that the allegations under "Items 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, (A/c No. 20/79, 50/80, 62/80, 63/80, 64/80, 2/81, 37/81; 10, 11, 12 (a, b), 13, 14 (A/c No. 99, 137, 168, 183, 299, 405 and S. Item Nos. 554 and 518); 15, 16, 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 (a, b, g, i, k, m), 24 and 25(9)" were not proved. He further said that so far as the remaining items 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 (A/c 18/81, M.T.L. 1/80), 12, 14 (A/c 123, 199, 397 and 432), 17(a), 23(c, d, e, f, h, j, i, n) were concerned, the main irregularity found was that there was no proper sanction or ratification from the Head Office. (Item 25 is a summary of the items).;