- (1.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated June 4, 1976 by which the Petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect.
(2.) The Petitioner was appointed as Clerk/typist in the Imperial Bank of India on November 24, 1954. After the reconstitution of Imperial Bank of India under the provisions of State Bank of India Act on July 1, 1955, the Petitioner became an employee of State Bank of India. He was promoted as Officer Grade II on December 20, 1965 and thereafter, to the post of Officer Grade-I on November 1, 1965. On November 11, 1971 a notice was issued to the Petitioner with regard to some irregularities committed by him in operating his Saving Bank account at Aligarh Branch and Current account at New Delhi, L.H.O. of which he gave it reply on December 4, 1971. Thereafter a formal charge sheet dated October 27, 1973 was served upon the Petitioner as it was proposed to proceed under Rule 49 of the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules). The main charges against the Petitioner were as follows : 1(a) Several cheques drawn by the Petitioner on his Saving Bank account at Aligarh Branch were discounted as D.D.s from New Delhi Main Branch, although he did not have sufficient funds in his account to meet these cheques at the time they were discounted. The details of six cheques so discounted were given in the charge sheet. 1(b) Several cheques drawn by the Petitioner from his Current account at New Delhi Main Branch were discounted as D.Ds. at Aligarh Branch, although he did not had sufficient funds in his account to meet the cheques at the time they were issued. The details of six cheques were given in the charge sheet. The Petitioner thus temporarily misused the funds of the Bank, committed breach of discipline and acted knowingly in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Bank. (ii) A credit Voucher for Rs. 3,333/- was posted twice in the Petitioner's account on 24.11.1969. He wilfully failed to bring this error to the Notice of the Branch and withdrew the amount to its maximum extent on 9.4.1970. The Petitioner thus contravened the provisions of Rule 49 and was guilty of misconduct. (iii) The Petitioner deposited large amount to the tune of Rs. 1.60 lacs and Rs. 0.85 lacs in his Current account at New Delhi and Saving Bank account at Aligarh respectively during the period from 1.1.1970 to 31.7.1971. He was thus found in possession of amounts disproportionate to his net salary/income. (iv) The Petitioner got a sum of Rs. 3,604/- transferred to his account from the account of Shri T.P. Agarwal, Deputy Head Cashier at Aligarh who was a subordinate employee on 9.11.1970 and thus contravened the provisions of Rule 43(1) of the Service Rules. (v) While working at Aligarh, he fell into debts as admitted by him in his letter dated 4.12.1971 but failed to Report the matter to his Controlling Authority, and thereby committed breach of Rule 47 of the Service Rules.
(3.) The Petitioner gave a reply to the charge sheet on November 8, 1973 and denied the charges levelled against him. His main defence was that he was constructing house at Aligarh under the Bank's Co-operative Housing Loan Scheme and in 1970-71 he was attached to New Delhi Local Head Office. It was admitted that in few cases on account of failure of the arrangements a Report was made to kite-flying (a technical word used in banking operation) for placing the account in sufficient funds with a view to honouring the negotiated cheques. He submitted that these encashments were innocent without knowing the fact of the account not being in sufficient funds on the date of encashment. Regarding double posting of voucher of Rs. 3,333/- the defence of the Petitioner was that the said fact was not known to him as he was posted at New Delhi. According to the Petitioner, Sri T.P. Agarwal was his friend and he helped him at the time of need as a friend. The Petitioner also took a plea that in June, 1971, he was posted as Field Officer, Khurja and was drawing Acting Allowance under Rule 60 of the Rules but was transferred to Saharanpur Branch as an Officer Grade-I thereby removing him from allowance carrying post by this action he had already been punished for the irregularities alleged to have been committed by him and the second proceedings initiated against him by serving charge-sheet were illegal.;