- (1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner H.K. Dogra, who was formerly employed as Officer Grade-II in the State Bank of India, has challenged the order dated 15th September, 1980 (Annexure P-6) by which he had been dismissed from service as a result of the disciplinary inquiry held against him.
(2.) The petitioner joined service of the State Bank of India established under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. In 1976, while he was posted as Officer Grade-II in the Patiala Branch of the State Bank of India (hereinafter called the 'Bank'), he was served with a charge-sheet on 27th May, 1976, containing a number of charges based on certain irregularities committed by him in the discharge of his duties as Officer of the Bank. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 27th day of August, 1977, in which the charges were refuted by him. Since the reply did not satisfy the authorities of the Bank, a disciplinary inquiry was ordered to be held against the petitioner. The inquiry was held in accordance with the provisions of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Services Rules. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report on 27th August, 1979, exonerating the petitioner of some charges but a few other charges were found established against the petitioner. Thereupon, the Chief General Manager disagreeing with the report of Inquiry Officer with regard to exoneration of the petitioner on certain charges and agreeing with the report of the investigating officer, on the remaining charges served a show cause notice on the petitioner on 2nd May, 1980. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 30th June, 1980, in which while refuting the allegations against him and commenting upon the evidence produced by the Bank before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner specifically raised an objection that the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the finding of exoneration recorded by the Inquiry Officer only on the grounds that the Investigating Officer had earlier recorded a different finding. Thereafter, on 15th September, 1980, the impugned order was served on the petitioner imposing upon him the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 1st September, 1980.
(3.) In reply to the writ petition, affidavit has been filed by the Bank in which factual position has not been disputed. However, according to the Bank, the disciplinary authority differred with the Inquiry Officer on a few charges on account of the fact that the evidence on record had not been correctly appreciated. It has further been stated that even though the difference of opinion by the disciplinary authority was based on the findings of the investigating officers, yet the reports of the investigating officers as also the evidence collected by them was a part of the evidence recorded during the inquiry proceedings. Hence, the action of the disciplinary authority in referring to the reports did not violate any provision of law. It has also been stated that the disciplinary authority had not relied upon any evidence not brought on the record during the course of enquiry proceedings and a copy of the report showing the reasons of such difference had also been communicated to the petitioner along with the show-cause notice. Regarding the non-communication of the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, it has been stated by the Bank that according to the procedure followed by the Bank every case of disciplinary proceeding involving fraud etc. was put up to the Vigilance Department for advice for the purpose of equity and uniformity which is part of internal system.;