NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THE controversy involved in this case gives rise to the issue whether the appointing authority having taken a decision to impose the penalty of reduction in the grade and the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty can subsequently change the decision on the advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer and impose the penalty of removal from service, under influence of such advice.
(2.) THE petitioner, who had been working as the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Patan Branch, was served with a memo dated 17.6.2000, in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, containing articles of charges. The petitioner was mainly alleged that : (i) He collected Rs. 78,411/ - from fourteen borrowers for crediting to their loan accounts, but he did not deposit the said amount, (ii) He had sanctioned loan to the wives of fourteen defaulters and had taken their thumb impressions, cash was collected by the petitioner, but was not deposited. (iii) He disbursed loans beyond the allocated budget without obtaining prior sanction, and recovered the lands' margin money in respect of P.M.R.Y loans, and the loan of I.R.D.P. group was disbursed by the petitioner beyond his discretionary power. Besides that, there were some other allegations of irregularities against him.
(3.) THE petitioner denied the charges and faced the enquiry. In the departmental enquiry, some of the charges were proved against the petitioner. He did not prefer to challenge the findings of enquiry officer. It is not of much relevance to go into the detail of material on record in view of the admitted position, as discussed hereinafter.;