- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 11.12.2000 ( Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the General Manager (Development & Personnel Banking), State Bank of India, Lucknow, respondent no.2, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 22.4.2001 ( Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Lucknow, respondent no.1 rejecting the appeal filed against the order dated 11.12.2000 aforesaid. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him on his post with all consequential benefits with continuity of service and arrears of salary etc. within a specified period fixed by the Court. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk in the respondent bank on 18.10.1966. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Officer Grade-II on 1.6.74 and on the post of Officer Middle Management Grade-II on 1.8.1989. While he was working as Deputy Manager at Banaras Hindu University Branch of State Bank of India, an FIR was lodged against him in case crime no. 128 of 1994, under Section 419 and 420 IPC at P.S. Lanka, Varanasi. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner on 27.7.1994. After a lapse of 5 years, he was served with a notice dated 16th March, 1999 for holding a departmental enquiry under Rule 68 (2)(iii) of the State Bank Officers Service Rules annexing therewith the statement of charges levelled against him, which reads thus:- " i) You opened S.B.A/c No. 36825 in the name of Shri Vishnu Narain Verma (Benami account) on 15th January, 1994 without depositing any amount either in cash or by cheque, and have withdrawn Rs. 1,00,400/- fraudulently on different dates. ii) You withdrew Rs. 40,000/- on different dates from your personal Saving Bank Account No. 36247 without having sufficient means. iii) While posted as Branch Manager at Annai Branch you got a cheque book No. A-346/373701 to 720 on 3rd September, 1991 issued in your name subsequent to the closure of the said S.B.A/c No. S-12 on 29th November, 1990 although the said account was opened without cheque book facility. From this cheque book, you put to use 13 cheques from 373708 to 720 in your S.B.A/c No. 36347 to BHU Branch and the remaining cheques nos. 373701 to 373007 remained in your possession." Pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated 16th March, 1999 the petitioner was asked to submit reply to the said charges levelled against him. He submitted his reply thereto. The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry in the matter and submitted his report dated 12th July, 2000 wherein all the three charges were found to be proved against him and he was asked to submit his reply/representation thereto failing which a final decision would be taken in the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation thereto.
(2.) THEREAFTER, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 11th December, 2000 after considering the enquiry report as well as the reply filed by the petitioner passed an order of dismissal from service against him.The Disciplinary authority has also found that the bank has suffered a loss and therefore, the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner has been forfeited to the extent of loss caused to the respondent bank. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.12.2000, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4751 of 2001 before this Court and has simultaneously filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The aforesaid writ petition no. 4751 of 2001 after hearing counsel for the parties was disposed directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Pursuant thereto the petitioner filed a departmental appeal which too was dismissed vide order dated 27th April, 2001, hence the instant writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner while passing the impugned order by which his services were terminated; that during the pendency of the writ petition he has been acquitted from the criminal case i.e. case crime no. 128 of 1994, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, but has been punished in departmental proceeding which is in violation of the principle of natural justice; that the impugned order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order and has been passed in a mechanical manner and that the enquiry has not been held in accordance with the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules,1992; and that similar controversy has been decided by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 757(S/B) of 1999 in Narendra Kumar Pandey versus State Bank of India reported in Educational Services Cases (2011) (5) (All) (DB) (LB)-3282. In support of his aforesaid contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the aforesaid decision rendered in Narendra Kumar Pandey versus State Bank of India, (2011(5) ESC-3282 ( All) (DB) (LB). In Narendra Kumar Pandey (supra) in paragraph nos. 65,69 and 71 of the judgment it has been held that official position was misused and irregularities were committed during the disciplinary enquiry. Documents required for inspection by the petitioner were not made available to him and the Enquiry Officer in these circumstances, passed exparte order on the ground that the Presenting Officer submitted a non-availability certificate in respect to documents required relating to the charge. It has further been held that no witness had been examined by the bank in support of the charge as such the departmental proceedings conducted against the delinquent employee were not found in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 43(1) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992, particularly Rules 66(j) and 68(2) (IX) (a) which resulted in denial of opportunity of defence to the petitioner.
(3.) THE Court in these circumstances, quashed the order impugned setting the respondents at liberty to hold disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner in the matter afresh. However, in the instant case, the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and he was also permitted to examine the original documents on which the reliance has been placed by the bank. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable from the case of Narendra Kumar Pandey (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid two impugned orders on frivolous grounds; that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing the aforesaid two orders impugned in the present writ petition there was violation of principles of natural justice is absolutely misconceived and untenable. According to him, this contention is incorrect as the petitioner was not only given full opportunity of hearing but was also permitted to examine the documents relied upon by the bank at the time of enquiry. It is stated that as per the legal position decided by the Apex Court in innumerable cases, the Court while exercising the powers of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of facts arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafide or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectively could have arrived at that finding. The Court cannot embark upon re-appreciating the evidence or weighing the same like the appellate authority. He next submits that all the charges levelled against the petitioner have been found proved on the basis of ample oral and documentary evidence before the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings; that in the final order of punishment, the authority has rightly concluded by passing order of dismissal of the petitioner and that there is no material placed by the petitioner to establish that in reaching such conclusion there is any perversity, hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the findings given by the Enquiry officer considering all the materials on record, the order of acquittal in the criminal case shall have no bearing or relevance. In this regard the Apex Court held that acquittal in the criminal case shall have no bearing or relevance to the facts of the departmental proceedings as standard of proof in both cases are totally different for this reason the criminal as well as the departmental enquiry proceedings can proceed simultaneously and independent of each other. It is stated that in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubts whereas in the departmental proceedings the department has to prove only preponderance of probabilities. In the present case the respondent bank was able to prove its case.;