CWP No.18590 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18590 of 2008 Date of decision: 04.11.2008 A.K. Jain ...Petitioner Versus State Bank of India & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner, who has been dismissed from service, has sought quashing of the inquiry report dated 6th October, 2005, Annexure P-2, the punishment order dated 17th April, 2006, Annexure P-5 as well as the orders passed by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority rejecting his appeal and review respectively. He has further prayed for a writ of mandamus to reinstate him in service of the respondent bank with effect from the date, he was dismissed therefrom. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was posted as an officer in Middle Management Grade Scale-II (MMGS-II) in State Bank of India, Punjab University Branch, Chandigarh when a charge- sheet was served upon him containing certain allegations. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who submitted the inquiry report on 6.10.2005. The petitioner was found guilty of some of the charges levelled against CWP No.18590 of 2008 2 him. The petitioner thus submitted representation dated 22th October, 2005, Annexure P-4 against the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the appointing authority passed the impugned order, Annexure P-5 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal, Annexure P-7 before the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority dismissed the same vide order dated 20th September, 2006, Annexure P-8. The petitioner thereafter submitted a review petition to the statutory Reviewing Committee. The said Reviewing Committee also rejected the plea of the petitioner vide order dated 13th May, 2008, Annexure P-11. The petitioner has impugned the entire disciplinary proceedings in the present writ petition and sought quashing of the same. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The counsel contended that the order Annexure P-5, passed by the punishing authority of the petitioner was non-speaking in nature and none of the issues raised by him in his representation, Annexure P-4 against the finding of the Enquiry Officer, were dealt with by the appointing authority. It has also been contended that the adverse recommendation made by the disciplinary authority to the competent authority proposing the punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner, had been considered by the appointing authority behind his back. Besides, the appellate authority and Reviewing Committee did CWP No.18590 of 2008 3 not apply their mind while rejecting his appeal and review respectively. The counsel also contended that the punishment of dismissal from service was unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate to the charge- sheet. While imposing the punishment, the unblemished service record of the petitioner of more than 30 years had not been taken into consideration. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments addressed by the counsel as well as the record annexed with the petition. A perusal of the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner Annexure P-1 shows that eight serious charges were levelled against the petitioner vide the said charge-sheet which included allegations of misuse of official position by accepting gratification for recommending loans, routing several high value transactions in his personal account which were disproportionate to his known source of income as well as misappropriation of bank funds and helping non-existent and fictitious firms to open account in the bank. The inquiry report shows that the Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence came to the conclusion that some of the charges against the petitioner were fully proved whereas others were partly proved. Thereafter, the appointing authority considered the entire matter and passed the order Annexure P-5 dated 17th April, 2006. Considering the gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner, he invoked Rule 67 (i) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules and dismissed the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the appellate authority also concurred with the findings of the appointing authority. The CWP No.18590 of 2008 4 petitioner preferred a review petition which was dismissed by the Reviewing Committee on 13.5.2008, Annexure P-11. A perusal of the orders passed by the appointing authority as well as appellate authority and the Reviewing Committee clearly show that the said authorities passed detailed orders after considering the entire matter. The contention of the counsel that the order passed by the appointing authority is non-speaking and does not deal with the issues raised by him in his representation, is devoid of force. A perusal of the orders show that all the contentions raised by the petitioner were dealt with by various authorities of the bank before whom he represented/ appealed. There is nothing on record to show that the appointing authority considered the recommendations of the disciplinary authority behind the back of the petitioner. We are also not impressed by the submission of the counsel that appellate authority and Reviewing Committee passed non-speaking and cryptic orders. On the other hand, a perusal of the said orders shows that the same are detailed orders and contain the reasons for rejecting the appeal and review of the petitioner respectively. The counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity or defect with the impugned orders passed against him. In view of the serious charges of omission and commission levelled against the petitioner, the bank rightly decided to dismiss him from service. Before imposing the punishment of dismissal, the bank followed the procedure prescribed under the rules. CWP No.18590 of 2008 5 No other argument has been addressed. We thus find no ground to interfere with the orders in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE November 04, 2008. 'rajpal'