- (1.) Through the medium of this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of his dismissal dated 4.1.1982 and the decision on his appeal dated 30.12.1982. The facts giving rise to this petition are set out briefly. The petitioner was promoted as officer in the year 1908 and was posted as a Branch Manager of the Bank. He is said to have been confirmed on 9.10.1969. The confirmation order is passed by the Executive Committee of the Central Board at its meeting held on 30.9.1969. In the year 1976 the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, Dhanaura Mandi Branch of the State Bank of India in district Moradabad. The petitioner submits that at the time of his joining at the said branch there was shortage of staff to assist him in the discharge of this enormous duties. He is Said to have made several requests for increasing the staff to cope up with the increased activities of the Bank. However, his request was not considered. At the relevant time the Prime Minister's 20 Point Programme was being implemented and financial assistance was to be provided to the weaker section of the society in the rural areas and to small scale industries. The officers of the Bank also had reported about the inadequacy and inefficiency of the staff. One Sri C.K. Gupta, who was interested to join at the petitioner's Branch, managed to get himself transferred to the petitioner's Branch and the petitioner was transferred to another Branch where Sri C.K. Gupta was posted.
(2.) In respect of some cash credit accounts irregularities were detected. One such account was in the name of one firm of which the petitioner's son was a partner. The petitioner is said to have agreed to pay the balance debt of his son at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from his salary. According to the petitioner opening of cash credit account of his son in the Bank was not against the rules. The said Sri C.K. Gupta is said to have made complaint against the petitioner in which it was alleged that the petitioner was making alterations in the documents. The Bank directed the said Sri C.K. Gupta not to allow access to the petitioner to the documents of the Bank. Some enquiry is said to have been made against the petitioner by four officers of the Bank on the complaint of the said Sri C.K. Gupta. As a result of this preliminary enquiry the petitioner is said to have received a charge-sheet on 19.3.1980, which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The petitioner's case is that he had desired to see and examine the records so as to file reply to the charge-sheet, which was not allowed to him. The petitioner had written a letter also in this regard which was replied by the Bank. Copies of the letter and the reply are placed on the record. The petitioner, therefore, is said to have filed a brief reply to the charges. Thereafter, the enquiry authority was appointed by the Bank and one Sri R.P. Sinha was appointed as Presiding Officer for the Bank, who is said to have been conversant with the procedure and legal matters and in respect of domestic enquiries he was considered to be an expert. The petitioner is said to have requested for being allowed to engage a lawyer in the domestic enquiry, which request was rejected. On the basis of the enquiry report the impugned order of dismissal, was passed against the petitioner. The enquiry officer has given a finding on the charges in a most cryptic manner. After giving narration of facts he has held the articles of charge proved. This type of finding is said to be without application of mind and not supported by any reason. Without giving show-cause notice to the petitioner about the proposed punishment he was arbitrarily punished and dismissed from service, which according to the petitioner was an extreme penalty. The appeal also had met the same fate. It was decided without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
(3.) The petitioner's case is that he could not be dismissed from service by the respondent No. 2, who was not his appointing authority. His appointing authority was a higher authority to the respondent No. 2. In this regard, the petitioner has relied on Regulation 55 applicable to the Bank. The said Regulation prescribed that no officer or employee of the Bank shall be dismissed from service of the State Bank of India by an authority lower than the appointing authority. The said Regulation reads as under : 55(1). Save as provided in sub-regulation (2) and as may be directed by the Central Board a Local Board may exercise all the powers of the State Bank in respect of the staff serving in the areas in its jurisdiction. (2)(a). The initial appointments and promotions to various categories of employees in the Bank shall be made. (i) In the case of officers and employees starting on a pay lower than the starting pay in the scale applicable for the time being to officers Grade II, by such authorities in the State Bank as may be specified where the appointment or promotion is for service in the Circle, by the Chief General Manager concerned and where the appointment or promotion is for service in or under Central Officer, by the Managing Director. (ii) In the case of Officers Grade II and Grade I and of other employees of whom the Rules of Service applicable to officers Grade II or Grade I generally apply with or without modifications, the Chief General Manager concerned or the Managing Director according as the appointment or promotion is for service in the Circle or in or under Central office. (iii) In the case of staff officer of various grades and of other employees to whom rules of service applicable to senior staff appointment generally apply with or without modifications, by the Managing Director. (iv) In the case of senior staff appointment and the employees to whom Rules of service applicable to Senior Staff appointments generally apply with or without modifications by the Executive Committee. Such officers or employees shall not be dismissed from service of the State Bank by an authority lower than the appointing authority.";