- (1.) This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner Shankar Lal Pandya assailing the charge-sheet dated 13/11/1987 (Ann.1), order of penalty dated 4/10/1990 (Ann.2) whereby punishment of imposing of reduction to the basic pay, impugned-order dated 29/2/1992 (Ann.3) whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid penalty order has been dismissed and the order dated 10/12/1993 (Ann.5) by which review petition for review of the appellate order dated 29/2/1992 was also rejected.
(2.) Shri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while petitioner was working on the post of Officer Grade-I (subsequently re-designated as Officer in JMGS-I), he was served with the memorandum dated 25/4/1985 calling for his explanation regarding some alleged irregularities. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 26/6/1985. Charge-sheet was issued to him belatedly on 13/11/1987. Two charges were leveled against petitioner. First was relating to the accounts and posting by one Shri Shyam Mohan Mangal. Second charge was relating to sanction of term loan to one Shri Lakshman Das. It is contended that petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet denying all the charges on 7/12/1987. Enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report, submitted a note containing his findings and recommendations to the appointing authority. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 4/10/1990 imposed penalty of reducing the basic pay to the minimum of pay scale of Rs.2100/- per month and directed that petitioner will be eligible for next increment after one year. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is a non-speaking order without discussing the evidence in toto. It is contended that petitioner was for the first time supplied order of penalty dated 4/10/1990 along with the enquiry report as also the note prepared by the disciplinary authority and it was only therefrom petitioner came to learn that the disciplinary authority and the appointing authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the enquiring officer. Neither any notice of disagreement was served upon him nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to him. The departmental appeal as also the review petition have been mechanically rejected. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Ors. Vs. Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 5 JT 548, S.B.I. & Ors. Vs. Arvind K.Shukla, 2001 4 JT 415, State Bank of India and others Vs. K.P. Narayanan Kutty, 2003 2 SCC 449 and Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman & MD ITI Ltd. and another, 2006 9 SCC 440. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the court towards the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 13/1/2014.
(3.) Shri Sachin Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and argued that charges against the petitioner were proved on the basis of evidence laid before the enquiring officer. It is submitted that during the period from 10/6/1982 to 9/2/1985 when petitioner was posted as Branch Manager at Prithviraj Marg, Branch of State Bank of India at Ajmer, one Shri Shyam Mohan Mangal dealing in manufacturing and installation of Superphone Intercom System and distribution of films, were enjoying credit facilities from Prithviraj Marg Branch of SBI, Ajmer in the name of five different partnership concerns, namely, Super Communication, Super Film, Santoshi Enterprises, Annapurna Enterprises and Annapurna Films and the total outstanding of the aforesaid firms were to the tune of Rs.9,53,569.25 in their accounts. Petitioner by misusing his official position as Branch Manager purchased D.D. Bills from these firms. In the inspection report of Prithviraj Marg Branch, Ajmer made on 14/7/1984, it was pointed out that petitioner is continuously making purchase of D.D. Bills without any sanction of regular limit in favour of the said partnership firms. When out of 11 bills aggregating to Rs.2,43,940.60 purchased by petitioner between January 1983 to January 1984 and bills aggregating to Rs.1,41,265.60 were returned unpaid by Ansari Nagar, New Delhi Branch of SBI, a suspicion was created and Administrative Officer (Loans) at the Bank's Regional Office, Jaipur was sent to Ajmer on 21/1/1985 to investigate the matter. It was found that the aforesaid firms used to negotiate bills showing dispatch of consignment of telephone cables and boxes of films through transport Company since 1982. The petitioner used to give credit by purchasing the bills illegally. This amounts to severe misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner was given full opportunity in the disciplinary proceedings to defend himself. Extension sought for by the petitioner to file reply was fully considered. His explanation was not found satisfactory.;