S.N.Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to send entire service records of the petitioner to this Hon'ble Court. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 21.12.2016 issued by the General Manager (NW-II)-cum-Appointing Authority, State Bank of India, Patna, whereby, the respondents have refused to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period from 20.03.2002 to 30.06.2013 (deemed superannuation). The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith release the salary for the period from 20.03.2002 to 30.06.2013 and entire consequential benefits thereof to the petitioner as per law and in consonance with the order dated 28.06.2016 passed in L.P.A. No. 108 of 2008.
(3.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. When the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Patna Branch, he was served with a charge-memo dated 17.06.2000, in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Service Rules and articles of charges were also furnished to him. Upon receipt of such charge-memo, the petitioner filed his reply denying the charges levelled against him and thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated, in which the petitioner was found to have performed his duties with utmost integrity and honesty but found him to be lacking diligence and devotion and held the charges to be partly proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority without assigning any reasons and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, differed with the enquiry report and held that the charges are fully proved. It is the further case of the petitioner, that after completion of the departmental proceeding, the appointing authority vide its order dated 20.03.2002, imposed penalty of "removal from service" under Rule 67(i) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. It is pertinent to mention here that, the appointing authority had initially taken a decision to impose penalty of reduction of the grade to JMGS-I and the period of suspension was to be treated as not on duty but under the direction of the Chief Vigilance Officer, ultimately, took a decision to impose penalty of "removal from service". Upon passing of such order, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum-Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2003. Thereafter, he filed a writ bearing W.P.(S). No. 3255 of 2005 against the orders of dismissal and the writ was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.02.2008, by which the order of punishment was modified by upholding the penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority i.e. lowering down his basic pay to the bottom of MMGS-II for a period of 4 years and period of suspension to be treated as not on duty. Immediately after passing of the order by the Hon'ble Court, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authority requesting therein to allow him to join the services but the respondents had denied the same. Thereafter, State Bank of India preferred an Appeal against the order passed by the Writ Court and the same was numbered as L.P.A. No. 108 of 2008. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, dismissed the said LPA, however, the order was modified to the extent that petitioner shall be inflicted with penalty of reduction in the grade of JMGS-I and the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty. After passing of order by Hon'ble Division Bench, the petitioner again filed a detailed representation dated 11.07.2016 with a prayer to grant him salary for the period from 20.03.2002 till 30.06.2013 (deemed superannuation) with all consequential benefits, as the petitioner has already been superannuated during the pendency of the LPA. In the meantime, the State Bank of India filed SLP (Civil) No. 26946 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, dismissed the said SLP. However, surprisingly, the respondents vide their letter dated 21.12.2016 denied to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from 20.03.2002 to 30.06.2013 (deemed superannuation) and all consequential benefits accruing to him. Hence, the petitioner has no option but to knock the door of this Hon'ble Court once again for redressal of his grievances.;