- (1.) THE petitioner, at the material time, while holding the post of Deputy manager (Law) of State Bank of India (hereafter the Bank) was posted at its bidhannagar Zonal Office. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him vide charge-sheet dated 9th May, 2000 issued by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal office of the Bank, being his disciplinary authority. The charges read as follows : (i) you did not declare in your statement of Assets and Liabilities as on 31. 03. 97 submitted to the Bank a land measuring 7 Cottah 7 Chattak 13 sq. ft. (arround 500 sq. metre.) at 226/5/1 N. S. C. Bose Road, Calcutta 700 092 purchased by your wife, Smt. Nibedita Pattanayak, along with one Smt. Mita ghosh on 30. 09. 96 at cost of Rs. . 4 lacs, for the purpose of promotion and developing. (ii) You did not intimate in writing to the Competent Authority regarding acquisition of the abovementioned immovable property in the name of your wife. . (iii) You did not disclose the amount of Rs. 1. 90 lac received by your wife in april 1990 from your brother-in-law in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities submitted to the Bank in the succeeding years. (iv) you along with your wife received possession of 4 number of flats from the Proprietor, Glove Construction, Calcutta and signed the receipt as joint owner along with your wife, Smt. Nibedita Pattanayak, on 01. 06. 98 and you did not mention the properties in your statement of Assets and Liabilities as on 31. 03. 99. (v) you were directly involved in the deal between your wife and M/s. Globe construction, the developer because you signed as a witness in the registered General Power of Attorney executed by your wife and her friend on 08. 05. 97 in favour of the developer and you also signed as a witness in the Deed of Agreement executed between the above parties on 12. 11. 98. . It was mentioned therein that the charges, if proved, would be deemed to constitute misconduct punishable under Rule 67 of the State Bank of India officers Service Rules (hereafter the Service Rules), and would be construed as a breach of Rules 50 (1), 50 (3) and 50 (4) thereof. Since the petitioner in his reply to the charges denied that he had in any manner acted in contravention of the Service Rules, an enquiry followed. Upon conclusion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report along with covering letter dated 20th October, 2001. On the basis of evidence led by the management and the petitioner as well as materials on record, he returned findings that all the charges levelled against him stood established. It would be worthwhile to reproduce below the findings arrived at by the enquiry Officer in respect of each of the five charges. They read : analysis and Inference : charge (i) During examination-in-chief by the PO, PW-1 has confirmed that in the statements of Assets and Liabilities submitted by the CSO, there is no mention in any of them of the purchase on 30. 09. 96 of a parcel of land at 226/5/1, N. S. C. Bose Road, Cal.-92 by Smt. Nibedita Pattanayak, the wife of the CSO. In the questionnaire (PEX-8) completed by the CSO during investigation by pw-2, the CSO has explicitly declared that Smt. Nibedita Pattanayak was only a house wife indicating that she had no independent source of income and that along with one Smt. Mita Ghosh, she had purchased a plot of land measuring 500 sqm. at 226/5/1, N. S. C. Bose Road, Cal-92. Speaking in his own defence the CSO has quoted the relevant portion of circular Letter (Per) 35/92 dt. 21. 05. 92 which, inter alia, states Properties owned or held by spouse or children which were not purchased from out of the funds of the officer, and continue to be owned by them need not be included, and has taken the plea (page 40) that as the property had been acquired out of the funds of his wife and her friend Mrs. Ghosh on 30. 09. 96, the same had not been disclosed by him in the annual statement of Assets and Liabilities/ This defence has been repeated by him at a later stage in his deposition (page-41 ). It however seems highly unlikely that his wife, a simple housewife would undertake a venture of the size involved without the knowledge of the employee and the plea that the land was acquired out of funds from his wifes independent source of income, of which he had no knowledge, would also appear unacceptable, specially in view of the contradictory contentions of the CSO in that he has admitted having signed as a witness to the General PA on 08. 05. 97 and then denying any knowledge till 1999. `charge (ii)- During re-examination by the PO, PW-1 has confirmed that in terms of the extant provisions acquisition of immovable property in the name of any member of the employees family, as also acquisition of movable property valued in excess of Rs. 5000/- needs to be intimated to the competent authority. This has been confirmed by PW-2 during his examination by the PO. While speaking on his own behalf the CSO denied having any knowledge either of the acquisition of immovable property by his wife or of the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the landowners and the developer. He added that he had come to know of the matters on 08. 05. 97 when he signed as a witness in the General PA. As concluded in the previous charge, it is highly unlikely that while his wife was involved in such a huge deal with the developer, the CSO continued to be blissfully unaware of the factillegibleall the more unacceptable since the CSO has himself declared that his wife was a mere housewife, and in dealings of the nature involved it is natural that she would be dependent on the guidance of her husband. Charge (iii) During his examination by the PO, PW-1 has adduced (page-10)that the annual statements of Assets and Liabilities submitted by the CSO, there is no reflection of receipt of Rs. 1. 9 lakhs by his wife from her brother. This has also been reiterated by PW-1 (page-15) during re-examination by the PO. During reexamination by the PO, PW-1 has adduced that the gifts of Rs. 1. 9 lakhs received by Mrs. Pattanayak would not constitute an independent source of income. During re-cross-examination by the CSO, PW-1 has not been able to respond specifically whether some (sic sum) of Rs. 1. 9 lakhs received by Mrs. Pattanayak would be the fund of Mr. Pattanayak, the CSO, or whether it would be possible for the employee to advice his employers regarding funds of which the CSO has no knowledge or any control over. The receipt of Rs. 1. 9 lakhs by the wife of the CSO has also been confirmed by PW-2 during his examination by the PO, after making a reference to PEX-8 which is the declaration made by the CSO in response to the questionnaire given to him by PW-2 who was the investigating officer in the case. PW-2 has also confirmed that in PEX 8 the CSO has declared that the sum of Rs. 1. 9 lakhs received by his wife was by way of Stridhan property in terms of the deed of family agreement (PEX-9) dated 20. 04. 90. It however seems highly unlikely that a sum of Rs. 1. 9 lakhs was received by the wife of the CSO and he remained ignorant of the fact. It is presumed that the cso and his family are not that affluent that receipt of the sum of Rs. 1. 9 lakhs would escape the attention of the CSO. In the matter of intimating the competent authority, the plea of independent source of income would also appear a bit farfetched. Charge (iv) During examination by the PO, PW-1 has adduced (page-11), on perusal of the annual statements of Assets and Liabilities submitted by the CSO in the relevant years, that there is no mention in any of them of receipt of possession of four flats along with his wife on 01. 06. 98. In the completed questionnaire (PEX-8) submitted to PW-2, the investigating officer, the CSO has declared that four flats had been received by his wife from the proprietor of M/s. Globe Construction on 01. 06. 98. This has been confirmed by PW-2 during examination by the PO (page 20 ). PW-2 has however adduced (page-22)during cross-examination by the CSO that in terms of the agreement with the developer the identified share of the owners would be handed over to them only. During his examination by the PO, PW-3 has deposed (page-26) that possession of the four flats were received by the CSO and his wife on 01. 06. 98. In response to the query of the PO, PW-3 has clarified that he had delivered the flats to the CSO as he had felt that the CSO, who had always supervised the work and had instructed PW-3 during the process of construction, was the actual owner. PW-3 also confirmed that the four flats received by the CSO and his wife, along with two car parking space, constituted the land-owners share of the property in terms of the agreement between the parties. PW-3 confirmed that at the time of handing over possession of the flats, the cso and his wife were present along with some other persons. He however confirmed (page 39) that DEX-I had been issued by him. While speaking on his own behalf the CSO said that on 01. 06. 98 at the time of receiving possession of the four flats he had merely been a witness to the transaction and had signed as such in the letter addressed to the developer acknowledging receipt of possession of four flats. It is highly improbable that the CSO would write Received the possession in habitable condition and affix his signature along with that of his wife, and subsequently claim that he had signed merely as a witness. Being a responsible official of the Bank and a Law Officer at that, it is highly unlikely that the CSO would be unaware of the implication of his signature in a material section of the relevant document (PEX-13 ). Charge (v) In his deposition during examination by the PO, PW-3 has confirmed that the signatures of the CSO appearing in the General PA dt. 08. 05. 97 (PEX-12), the letter dt. 01. 06. 98 from the CSO and his wife acknowledging receipt of possession of four flats (PEX-13) and in the agreement dt. 12. 11. 98 (PEX-14)were affixed in his presence. It has also been reiterated (page-31) by PW-3 during cross-examination by the CSO that the signatures on PEX-12 had been affixed in his presence and could be identified by him. During re-examination by the PO, PW-3 confirmed that during settlement of the terms and drawing up PEX-11 and 12 it was the CSO who had dealt with the matter exclusive, using the term on my plot, leading PW-3 to the conclusion that the CSO was the actual owner. This fact was also re-confirmed by PW-3 (page-39)saying that neither Mr. Pattanayak nor Mrs. Ghosh was involved in the settlement of the illegible. . . agreement. While speaking on his own behalf the CSO said that he was not involved directly in the deal between the landowners and the developer at the time of settlement of terms but had only been a witness to the events. The CSO has also narrated (page-41) that his wife along with her brother and Mrs. Ghosh had negotiated with the developer regarding construction of flats. The deposition of PW-3 is materially significant in the matter, since he was the first person involved and at no stage during his cross-examination of the witness did the CSO attempt to overturn attempt to furnish any evidence in rebuttal. Findings: accordingly, charge (i) - is established charge (ii) - is established charge (iii) - is established charge (iv) - is established charge (v) - is established the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner seeking his comments thereon. By his representation dated 28th November, 2001, the petitioner contended, for reasons assigned therein, that the said report ought not to be accepted. The appointing authority of the petitioner i. e. the General Manager (D and pb), to whom records of enquiry were forwarded by the disciplinary authority together with his recommendations, however, did not agree with the petitioner and by communication dated 3rd January, 2002, the appointing authority forwarded to him the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings whereby the penalty of reduction to the grade of JMGS I at the stage at which you joined the Bank under Rule 67 (g) of the Service Rules was inflicted on him. The final order passed by the appointing authority dated 28th December, 2001 reads as follows : major penalty proceedings were initiated against Shri Monoranjan pattanayak, Dy. Manager (Law), presently posted at Zonal Office, bidhannagar, for alleged gross misconduct in connection with acquisition of properties by his wife and non-disclosure of the same in his Assets and liabilities statement during his tenure as Dy. Manager (Law) at Zonal Office, kolkata, from April 1991 to January 1999. Articles of Charge in terms of kolkata Zonal Office letter No. DS/94/2000-2001 dated 09. 05. 2000 were issued and duly acknowledged by the charged official on 18. 05. 2000.
(2.) REPLY to the charge sheet was not submitted within the stipulated period and an inquiry was ordered into the matter by the concerned Disciplinary authority. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 20. 10. 2001 in which he concluded that all five charges levelled against Shri Pattanayak were proved.
(3.) COPY of the Inquiry Report was sent to the charged official, Shri pattanayak for his comments and he submitted his reply to the Disciplinary authority on 28. 11. 2001.;