THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.785 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The appellant worked as an Officer in Middle Management Grade Scale-II & III in the State Bank of Hyderabad. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the charge sheet dated 26.07.1985 issued by the Office of the Managing Director of the Bank. It is, however, relevant to note that the Managing Director signed the same as the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Chief General Manager. The appellant submitted his explanation to the same on 29.08.1985. He retired from service on 31.05.1987. He was dismissed from service by order of the Chief General Manager of the Bank dated 30.06.1988. His appeal to the Managing Director of the Bank, being the appellate authority, was dismissed on 28.07.1989. His challenge to the disciplinary action in W.P.No.6293 of 1992 met with failure as the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that there was no irregularity committed by the Bank in dismissing the appellant from service. Dr.K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the disciplinary proceedings were rife with irregularities and the action taken against his client cannot be sustained. He placed reliance upon Regulation 19 (3) of the State Bank of Hyderabad [Officers'] Service Regulations, 1979, which states as follows. “Sub-Clause (3): In case disciplinary proceedings under the relevant regulations of service has been initiated against an Officer before he ceases to be in the Bank's Service by the operation of, or by virtue of any of the said regulations or the provisions of these regulations, the disciplinary proceedings may, at the discretion of the Managing Director, be continued and concluded by the authority by which the proceedings were initiated in the manner provided for in the said regulations as if the officer continues to be in service, so however, that he shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of such proceedings.” According to the learned counsel, the above provision has application to the case as his client retired from service prior to the passing of the dismissal order. Therefore, the authority, who initiated the proceedings alone, could have continued and concluded the same. He placed reliance upon the charge sheet dated 26.07.1985 and pointed out that the Managing Director of the Bank had issued the charge sheet and therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the Chief General Manager of the Bank was in violation of the above Regulation. Per contra, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, contended that the Managing Director had been appointed as the in-charge disciplinary authority by the Board of Directors of the Bank, which passed a resolution embodied in the Circular dated 07.08.1994 as there was a vacancy in the post of the Chief General Manager. He also submitted that this aspect had been specifically adverted to in the counter affidavit filed by the Bank. Thereupon, the learned Single Judge, after perusing the record, held that there was no irregularity in the continuance of disciplinary proceedings by the Chief General Manager, though the charge sheet was issued by the Managing Director in an in-charge capacity. Having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that the Managing Director of the Bank had only officiated as an in-charge when he issued the charge sheet to the appellant on 26.07.1985 and thereafter, once the regular Chief General Manager took over, he continued the proceedings, which culminated in the order dated 30.06.1998, whereby, the appellant was dismissed from service. It is not the case of the appellant that the very same individual, who occupied the post of the Managing Director when the charge sheet was issued, thereafter, heard his appeal and dismissed it in the year 1989. There is no violation of the Regulations or the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that there is no irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings taken by the respondent-Bank against the appellant. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 4th August 2009 RRB