M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the Order of his dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide, order dated 26.9.1994 and also the order dated 9.5.1995 passed in departmental appeal affirming the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority,
(2.) PETITIONER was in service of the respondent -State Bank of India as record -Keeper in Zonal Officer, Ranchi. By order dated 25.6.1991 he was put under suspension in anticipation of a departmental proceeding. Thereafter, petitioner was served with a charge sheet vide order dated "Charge No. 1. - - 'That while you were working at Zonal Office, Ranchi, on 10th May, 1991 at around 2.45 p.m. you entered into the Chamber of the Administrative Secretary to the Dy. General Manager, S.B.I. Zonal Office, Ranchi in absolute drunken condition and thereafter you slumped into the vacant chair of Shri P.K. Bose, Steno - Typist with your foot on the table of Shri Bose. When you did not budge out on the request of the Administrative Secretary to the Dy. General Manager, the Asstt. Security Officer was called for the purpose and finally you were escorted out of the Chamber of the Ad -ministrative Secretary to the Dy. General Manager by the Asst. Security Officer. You were, thus, found guilty of drunkenness and indecent behavour in the premises of the Bank. Charge No. 2. - - 'That on 26.6.1991 at 9.00 a.m. you were caught red handed in the act of filtching a Voltage Stabilizer, which was being used in the Talex Room on the 4th floor of the Zonal Office Building, by the Assistant Security Officer, SBI, Zonal Office, Ranchi, Shri N.K. Mishra, JMGSl. The above act on your part, besides casting serious aspersion on your integrity and bona fides, is highly prejudicial to the interest of the Bank." Petitioner submitted his detailed show cause denying and disputing the charges leveled against him. The Inquiry Officer appointed by the respondent -Bank proceeded with the inquiry and submitted his inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer divided charge No. 1 in two sub -heads. First part of the charge is that at around 2.45 p.m. on May 10, 1991 the charged employee in drunken state was found seated on the vacant chair of Steno -typist Sri P.K. Bose. The Inquiry Officer held that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to prove that seat of Steno -typist was vacant. It was therefore, held that this part of the charge has not been proved. The second part of the charge was that the charged employee in a drunken state was escorted out of the Chamber. The Inquiry Officer found that the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution was not corroborated by pathological test as required and therefore this part of the charge stands partially proved. The Inquiry Officer further found that charge No. 2 has not been proved.
(3.) THE Disciplinary Authority however, disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and issued show -cause notice to the petitioner holding that charge No. 1 has been fully proved and the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is ridiculous and perverse. However, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the finding of the Inquiry Officer as against Charge No. 2 petitioner filed his show cause and stated that even part of the charge No. 1 has not been partially proved and therefore petitioner is bound to be exonerated from the charges. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the show cause of the petitioner passed the impugned order of punishment by way of dismissal of the petitioner from the service. Petitioner filed departmental appeal, which was ultimately heard by General Manager (Operations) who affirmed the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.;