Letters Patent Appeal No.500 OF 2007 ***** Against the order dated 30.4.2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J.C. No.7070 of 2005. ***** 1. The Chief General Manager, Appellate Authority, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna. 2. The General Manager (D & PB), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna. 3. The Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Zonal Office, Patna. 4. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-I, Zonal Office, Patna. 5. Mr. K. Sitaraman, the then Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna. All the aforesaid being the Officers of the State Bank of India in their official capacity are being represented through the Assistant General Manager (Vigilance), Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna under Regulation 77 read with Regulation 76 of the State Bank of India General Regulation, 1955. ----Appellants. Versus Sri Basant Kumar Singh, S/o late Shyam Nandan Singh, C-103, Charminar Apartment, Road No.12, Rajendra Nagar, Patna. ----Respondent. ****** For the Appellants: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate. ***** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ***** S.K. Katriar, J. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 30.4.2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7070 of 2005 (Sri Basant Kumar Singh Vs. the Chief General Manager and others), whereby the writ petition preferred by 2 the petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed, and the order of punishment of compulsory retirement passed against him has been set aside. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ petition. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The petitioner was at the relevant point of time a functionary of the State Bank of India and was posted at different places. As a prelude to the present departmental proceeding, it may be stated that a departmental proceeding had earlier been concluded against him, whereby he was found guilty of unauthorised absence. A chart of his unauthorised absence forms part of the charge- sheet marked Annexure-10 to the writ petition, and is reproduced hereinbelow: LIST OF DOCUMENTS FORMING BASIS OF ALLEGATION PERIOD OF ABSENCE (BASED ON LHO LETTER NO.GM (D & PB)/ PER/P/3734 DATED 12.12.2001. FROM ---------- TO ---------- NO. OF DAYS. ----------- OF POSTING ------------------- BRANCH/OFFICE REMARKS ------------------------- 01.04.98 18.04.98 18 Region-III Z.O. Patna No. leave application & no leave due. 27.04.98 06.05.98 10 Z.O. Muz. Leave application received but no leave due. 25.05.98 ---------- 01 Motihari No leave application & no leave due. 08.06.98 13.06.98 06 Motihari -do- 18.06.98 19.06.98 Motihari -do- 29.06.98 31.10.98 Motihari -do- 01.11.98 10.04.99 Motihari -do- 13.04.99 02.05.99 Pipra -do- 04.05.99 08.05.99 Pipra -do- 11.05.99 15.05.99 Pipra -do- 3 24.05.99 31.12.99 Pipra Medical leave application submitted not accompanied by proper Medical Certificate. 01.01.2000 12.02.2000 Pipra No leave application & no leave due. 27.02.2000 13.03.2000 16 Nayagaon -do- ----------- TOTAL 634 DAYS In the earlier departmental proceeding, the writ petitioner was found guilty of unauthorised absence for various periods up to 31.12.1999, and the following punishment was inflicted to him: “3. In view of the circumstances and seriousness of lapses committed by you I impose upon you penalty of „Reduction by two stages in time scale of pay for two years with further direction that you will not earn the increment to pay during the period of such reduction and that after expiry of such period, reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of your pay‟ in terms of Rule 67(f) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. A detailed „Order‟ is annexed to this letter.” The order attained finality and the order of punishment was carried out. This much is by way of background. 2.1) The petitioner was proceeded with the present proceeding for his unauthorised absence for the later two periods occurring in the aforesaid chart, namely, 1.1.2000 to 12.2.2000, and 27.2.2000 to 13.3.2000. The learned enquiry officer found him guilty of unauthorised absence for the latter block period, namely, 27.2.2000 to 13.3.2000. The learned disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement, a major penalty in terms of rule-67 of the State Bank of India Officers Service 4 Rules. The petitioner‟s departmental appeal failed, leading to the present writ petition which has been allowed by the order in question. The learned Single Judge has found the action to be arbitrary for two reasons. The earlier period of 1.1.2000 to 12.2.2000 was really part of the earlier departmental proceeding where he was found guilty of unauthorised absence for that period, notwithstanding which the same period was included in the present charge-sheet also. The learned Single Judge further found that the leave records of the writ petitioner maintained by the local Branch did not tally with the corresponding records of the headquarters in Patna. Consequently the order of punishment has been set aside. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The position that the period 1.1.2000 to 12.2.2000 was the subject-matter of the previous proceedings, and the petitioner was admittedly exonerated of that part of the charge, is correct. It is further correct that the same period was included in the present charge. We do not attach any importance to this for the reason that a charge-sheet is a mere allegation to be proved or disproved during the course of enquiry, is not final order, and is subject to detailed investigation in course of enquiry. The learned enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the period 1.1.2000 to 12.2.2000, being common period already decided in the previous proceeding, cannot go against the petitioner and, therefore, exonerated the 5 petitioner of this part of charge. However, the learned appellate authority disagreed with this part of the learned disciplinary authority, and came to the conclusion that there were adequate materials on record to show that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for the period 1.1.2000 to 12.2.2000. There may be a difference of views, before the superior authorities and the proceedings are meant to correct such errors. We, therefore, entirely disagree with the order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the entire departmental proceeding on this ground. We are of the view that the better course is to exonerate the petitioner of this part of finding, and then judge the culpability of the petitioner with respect to unauthorised absence for the period 27.2.2000 to 13.3.2000. We must hasten to add that the petitioner had also taken steps, and did receive salary, for the period of unauthorised absence in a situation where no application for leave was submitted, nor any leave was due to him. In such a situation, it goes without saying that there was no question of his drawing salary for this period. He could have drawn salary for the period if leave was due to him for that year, after specific order of the appropriate authority, condoning his unauthorised absence and passing order for grant of salary against leave due to him. 4. The net result is that the petitioner is undoubtedly guilty of unauthorised absence for the period 27.2.2000 to 13.3.2000, and also for drawing salary most illegally. Such a situation gives rise to the 6 question of proportionate punishment. To this has to be added his past conduct. He was found guilty of unauthorised absence on 11 occasions covering a total period of 570 days out of which, he had no leave to his credit on 10 occasions. As to the 11th occasion he had submitted leave application on medical ground unaccompanied by medical certificate. The situation in its totality as reflected in the chart indicated hereinabove shows a decimal picture of the petitioner‟s performance and conduct while in service. He seems to be in wayward and inexcusable habit of remaining on unauthorised absence for long durations when he had no leave to his credit. In other words, he had exhausted the leave due to him during those years leaving nothing to his credit. This cumulatively speaks of a very sad state of affairs. A person is in employment and paid salary and perquisites to render useful and effective service to the employer. Enjoying unauthorised leave renders the employment in quandary, leaving the affairs of the office in a state of disarray. Banking service is day-to-day service and has to be done in an organised manner. The petitioner‟s persistent conduct was a dent in such organised affairs of banking business. We are of the view that in such a situation the order of compulsory retirement is surely not on the higher side. Mr. S.D. Sanjay on instruction submits that punishment of compulsory retirement in terms of rule 67 of the Rules does not entail deprivation of the benefits of 7 past services. In other words, the petitioner shall be entitled to his post- retirement benefits. 5. We are convinced that the prescribed procedure was followed, the principles of natural justice were observed, the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to set up his defence during the course of enquiry proceeding in which he did participate and he did prefer appeal. We have already stated hereinabove that proportionate and justified punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner. 6. In the result, we disagree with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is allowed, and the order of compulsory retirement is restored. Operation of the order of the learned Single Judge was stayed by a Division Bench passed in the present appeal on 21.8.2007, read with the order dated 17.9.2008. There shall be no order as to costs. (S K Katriar, J.) Kishore K. Mandal, J. I agree. (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 4th day of May, 2010. S.K.Pathak/(NAFR).