M.KATJU, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 16/12/1985 passed by the Chief General Manager/Disciplinary Action Cell, State Bank of India, New Delhi copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition. By that order the petitioner has been dismissed from the service of the State Bank of India.
(2.) The petitioner was Field Officer, Junior Manager Grade Scale I in the service of the State Bank. He was issued charge-sheet dated 16/05/1983 copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition in which several allegations have been made of embezzlements and other financial irregularities. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner has been found guilty. The full details have been given in the impugned order dated December 16, 1985 Annexure-5 to the petition. A perusal of the said order shows that full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and after detailed discussion and materials on record he has been found guilty of several charges relating to financial irregularities. A bank functions on public confidence, and if a dishonest employee is retained then the public will lose confidence in the bank.
(3.) In Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regional Manager v. N.B. Patnaik 1996 (9) SCC 69 : 1996-II-LLJ-379, the Supreme Court observed that even if no loss has been caused to the bank, an act beyond one's authority is misconduct. In Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman 1997 (4) SCC 565, a bank employee was punished for giving loans without adequate security. The Supreme Court upheld the punishment. In State Bank of India v. T. J. Paul AIR 1999 SC 1994 : 1999 (4) SCC 759 : 1999-II-LLJ-514, the Supreme Court observed that proof of actual loss was not necessary for punishing a bank employee.;