- (1.) This writ application has been preferred challenging the entire disciplinary proceeding including the charge-sheet dated 2nd December, 2012 issued by the respondent no.3, the enquiry report communicated vide memorandum dated 14th November, 2012, the second show cause notice dated 4th January, 2013 issued by the respondent no.2, the final order of punishment issued by the respondent no.2 on 15th January, 2013 and the order dated 10th July, 2013 issued by the appellate authority.
(2.) The facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as SBI) on 29th October, 2001 and upon discharging 11 years of service in different posts, the petitioner was posted as the Branch Manager at Panjipara Branch of SBI on 18th December, 2008 and he was in the said post till 21st November, 2009 and thereafter he was transferred to Berhampore Branch of SBI and while he was working there a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Regional Manager, Region-II vide memorandum dated 29th August, 2011 to which the petitioner furnished a reply on 16th September, 2011 and more than 4 months thereafter the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet vide memorandum dated 2nd December, 2012 containing 14 charges to which the petitioner replied and subsequent thereto an enquiry officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry on four days and submitted the enquiry report which was communicated to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 14th November, 2012 to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 24th November, 2012 and thereafter vide memorandum dated 4th January, 2013 a second show cause notice was issued by the respondent no.2 proposing a major penalty of removal from service in terms of Rule 67(i) of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as SBOIOSR) to which the petitioner filed his reply and subsequent thereto the respondent no.2 issued the order of punishment on 15th January, 2013. Challenging the same the petitioner initially preferred a writ application being W.P. No.4967 (W) of 2013 but subsequently he withdrew the same with liberty to prefer an appeal departmentally and thereafter the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal which was also rejected by an order dated 10th July, 2013.
(3.) Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have all proceeded on the basis of a preconceived notion that the petitioner has wrongfully gained through disbursement of agricultural loans, though there was no specific charge to that effect.;