S.H.A. Raza, J. - (1.) The fate of this writ petition hinges on the reply to the question as to whether the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, without giving any opportunity to the delinquent, may impose punishment to the petitioner.
(2.) In the counter affidavit it has been indicated that the disciplinary authority not only recorded its disagreement with the finding of the Inquiry Officer but also recorded its own finding on charge, on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. He was otherwise competent to impose the penalty, but being junior in rank to the appointing authority, he recommended that he be dismissed from bank service. The appointing authority, while considering the records pertaining to the enquiry in its entirely and being in agreement with the finding of the disciplinary authority, dismissed the petitioner from bank's service.
(3.) Rule 60(3) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, which are applicable to the petitioner, provides that where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the report of the Enquiry authority, he may, for reasons recorded in writing, remit the case to the enquiring authority for fresh or further inquiry. Rule 50(3)(ii) provides that where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding of the inquiry authority on any article of charge, may on the basis of evidence on record, record its own finding and record reasons for such disagreement. Rule 50(3)(iii) provides that disciplinary authority having regard to its finding may make an order imposing any of the penalties specified under Rule 49.;