- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of dismissal dated October 21, 1994 passed by respondent No. 1 and the appellate order dated April 4, 1995 passed by Deputy managing Director (Appeals and Review ).
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Cashier in State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) in 1963 and was further promoted in the cadre of officer in the Bank. He was issued a charge-sheet dated may 5, 1992 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition)containing five charges of lack of devotion and diligence to duty, acting in a manner unbecoming of a Bank official, highly prejudicial to the Bank's interest, violation of rule 32 (4), and, misuse of his position as officiating Branch Manager. Another charge-sheet dated May 10, 1993 containing a single charge was served upon him. The petitioner replied both the charge-sheets. After holding departmental inquiry in respect of both the charge-sheets, enquiry officer submitted his report, where after the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal vide order dated October 21, 1994 and the petitioner's appeal against the said order was dismissed.
(3.) SRI V. C. Mishra, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, contended that on the face of it the charges levelled against the petitioner which have been found proved are not so serious as to warrant penalty of dismissal and, therefore, punishment imposed upon the petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. He placed reliance upon apex Court's judgment in State Bank of India and others v. T. J. Paul, AIR 1999 SC 1994 : (1994) 4 SCC 739 : 1999-II-LLJ-154 and chairman and Managing Director, United commercial Bank and others v. P. C. Kakkar, air 2003 SC 1571 : (2003) 4 SCC 364 : 2003-II-LLJ-181. He contended that since there was no allegation of loss or profit resulted on account of any alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner, therefore, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner is illegal and does not commensurate to the gravity of charges. He further contended that punishment and appellate orders are non-speaking orders and therefore liable to be set aside. The order of respondent No. 3 is also said to be violative of rule 51 (2) of the Disciplinary Rules. It is contended that in respect of the same charges another person was also issued a charge sheet but he was retained in service while the petitioner has been dismissed. Therefore, punishment is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Lastly it is contended that before imposing proposed punishment of dismissal, the petitioner was entitled to a show cause notice but no such opportunity has been given to the petitioner. Therefore, punishment and appellate orders are vitiated in law.;