PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter -alia prayed for quashing of the order of dismissal from services vide order dated 09.12.2006 passed by General Manager (Network -II) S.B.I., L.H.O, Patna and for quashing the appellate order dated 09.04.2007 and for quashing the review order dated 03.03.2008 and the petitioner has further prayed to reconsider the case and impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof and also for direction upon the respondents to reinstate with all consequential benefits without break in service.
(2.) The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk in State Bank of India and subsequently the petitioner has been promoted to the Junior Management Grade Scale -1. While continuing as such at Digwadih Branch, the petitioner was served vide memo dated 16.09.2005 wherein it has been informed that the decision has been taken initially by departmental proceeding against him and alongwith the memo statute of evidences were also enclosed, the allegations contained 21 charges during his incumbency at A.M.Y. Damkara Branch. On receipt of the charges, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations. The matter was enquired by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report and Inquiry Officer, out of 21 charges held, 16 charges to be proved, 3 charges to be partly proved and 2 charges not proved. On receipt of the inquiry report the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services vide order dated 09.12.2006. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.04.2007 rejected the appeal and against the dismissal of the Appellate Order, the petitioner filed a review application which has also been rejected by the Reviewing Authority who has confirmed the order of dismissal of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Order. The petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra -ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Per -contra a counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter -affidavit, it has been submitted that the entire departmental proceeding has been completed after following rules, regulations and the principles of natural justice, therefore, the writ petition is totally misconceived and the order of punishment has been confirmed by the Appellate as well as the Reviewing Authority by speaking order and thus the writ application is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed in limine. In the counter -affidavit, it has been submitted that while working as Junior Management Grade Scale -1, there were serious allegations against the petitioner who failed to serve the bank with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer and highly prejudicial to the Bank's interest and accordingly the Bank vide order dated 16.09.2005 decided to proceed against the petitioner and by the said Articles of charges were issued to him and as per SBI Officers' Services Rules 68(2)(ii) an inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry officer submitted his report and the petitioner was supplied with copy of the inquiry report so as to as enable him to make submissions/representations against the findings of the inquiry officer. After submissions of the inquiry report and considering the materials on record and after following the Service Rules, the Appointing Authority inflicted the penalty of dismissal in terms of Rule 67(j) of SBI Officers Service Rules vide a speaking order dated 09.12.2006 and the said order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Reviewing Committee. It is further submitted that it is quite apparent that the petitioner has committed serious irregularities and he has not acted with utmost honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer and highly prejudicial to Bank's interest and so the question of reinstatement of such officers does not arise because the petitioner has lost the confidence of the Bank. In Banking Business, the officers and staff of the Bank must have honesty, integrity, devotion and diligence and the moment there is loss of confidence, the question of continuing in service does not arise and accordingly, the present order of his dismissal from services is suffering from no irregularity or illegality and moreover, considering the factual position of punishment imposed upon the petitioner, cannot be said to be disproportionate with the charges levelled against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the delinquent employee was already punished for certain serious irregularities committed by him which is apparent from letter dated 21.06.2004 vide Annexure -B to the counter -affidavit and the order of dismissal by General Manager (disciplinary authority) so the plea of the petitioner that he has acted with utmost devotion and diligence and his service record is also unblemished is not correct. It has further been submitted in the counter -affidavit that the statement made in the writ application that there is no financial loss to the Bank is not acceptable. In financial institution, like Bank which is a trustee of public fund, monetary loss cannot be the only criteria to judge the integrity and sincerity of the employee. Tinkering with one's account without his consent/authority is defiance of basic banking norms and principles and as such the delinquency must be denounced and disapproved.;