The charged officer, herein, while he was functioning as the Deputy Manager of the Bank was served with a charge sheet dated 15.02.1995 by the Joint Manager Operations Disciplinary Authority stating that while he was posted as officer JMGS I at Government Business Branch, Kanpur, and Accountant and officiating Branch Manager at Kalpi Road Kanpur Branch from 21st May 1985 to 20th October 1987 and 21st October 1987 to 22nd May 1991 respectively had failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Official and highly prejudicial to the Banks interest in deliberate violation of Rules 50 3 , 50 4 , 50 9 and 60 2 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules in short the Service Rules .
The presenting officer had sent his written brief on 08.12.1997 but numberwritten brief was sent by the charged officer.
The balance in the account of Shri O.S. Srivastava was number sufficient to pay these cheques.
The charged officer was given 15 days time to submit his statement of defence.
From 11.06.1996 to 07.11.1997, the Inquiring Authority companyducted inquiry on 17 dates and many a times the inquiry was adjourned on the request of the charged officer.
Vig/96/11 dated 08.05.1996 appointed the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges levelled against the charged officer as per the charge sheet dated 15.02.1995.
There was a further direction to the Bank to pay arrears of subsistence allowance treating the period of his absence as deemed suspension.
The Court held Rule 68 2 ix companytemplates that the Inquiry officer must ensure supply of list of documents and witnesses to be relied on by Bank in support of its charges.
You did number advise, how the remaining cheque, were utilized.
iii Your such actions were highly prejudicial to the Banks interest and unbecoming of Bank Official.
Charge No.9 Your savings bank account number 5603 shows numerous debit credit transactions other than salary and allowances which you did number explain sic for heavy amounts.
On 06.11.1997, the charged officer walked out of the inquiry.
The proceeds of the loan were credited to your account on 28.05.1988 and were withdrawn by you in cash the same day but you did number purchase the vehicle within a month of availment of loan as per Banks instructions.
Thus, you have misutilised the facility, and issued the cheque without funds in your account.
Thus, your act of getting issued several cheque books to yourself without exhausting the earlier ones, is highly irregular on your part and in companytravention of the Banks laid down instructions ii You utilized a cheque leaf bearing number 422276 for drawing on your savings bank account number 5603 with Kalpi Road Branch although the cheque book companytaining this cheque leaf was issued to some other account holder and has been recorded as surrendered and destroyed in the Branch books.
On 07.11.1997, thirty four more documents were produced and marked as Ex.
It is numbericed that out of unutilized cheques, one cheque bearing number 835524 was issued by you on 17.9.1987 favouring SBI SEE Co op.
Shri Harin P. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Bank, submitted that the High Court has companymitted an error in interfering with the order of dismissal especially when the charged officer had an alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 69 of the Service Rules.
The appointing authority, after going through the relevant records of the case, the charge sheet, proceedings of the inquiry, written briefs of the presenting officer, the findings of the Inquiring Authority etc.,
Charges are given under for easy reference Charge No.1 You raised a number of spurious entries by debiting LOCL LIT A c at Kalpi Road Branch, Kanpur and afforded fictitious credit to the Current Account No.7/12 in the name of Shri O.S. Srivastava and Savings Bank Account No.
Learned companynsel also submitted that the list of bank documents for inspection had been enclosed by the presenting officer vide letter dated 21.05.1997 to the charged officer which the charged officer had refused to accept.
The charged officer, it is seen, did number avail the opportunity and remained absent on 21.07.1997.
The charged officer without availing of the remedy of a statutory appeal approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Along with the chargesheet, statements of allegations were also annexed.
Admittedly, the provision of Rule 68 3 had been companyplied with and the charged officer was given time to file objections to the charges levelled against him.
The Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 11.03.1999 with liberty to hold a fresh inquiry.
On representation of the cheque on 23.4.86, it was paid after cash deposit of Rs.6,000/ by you.
The High Court, however, took the view that the presenting officer had failed to discharge his obligation of making available the list of all the documents and witnesses to the charged officer.
The charged officer submitted his reply on 29.03.1995 denying all the charges.
The order was passed to that effect on 11.03.1999.
Further, it was also pointed out that vide letter dated 30.05.1997, the presenting officer had enclosed the list of bank documents and requested the charged officer to inspect the same at the relevant branch which also the charged officer refused to accept.
Charge No.8 Although numberSTDR TDR existed in the name of Shri O.S. Srivastava in branch books, you made false numbering in the cheque referred and returned register against the entries in respect of two cheques drawn by him on his current account to give misleading information that Shri Srivastava had STDR TDR.
Altogether, 12 charges were framed against him.
38, while most of the withdrawals from the account were made by way of withdrawal forms, you got 4 cheque books issued and utilized approximately 15 cheques only.
The Court took the view that the presenting officer did number place anything on record to show when the list was made available to the charged officer.
On 24.03.1995, the charged officer sought permission from the Bank for inspection of the relevant documents, which was permitted by the Bank on 29.04.1995.
4 You got issued a number of cheque books on your savings bank and current account, although only few cheque leaves were used by you.
The Inquiring Authority, however, companytinued and companycluded ex parte on 07.11.1997.
The cheque companyld be paid when you deposited Rs.14,000/ cash on 24.6.87.
The charged officer was also informed that he has a right of appeal to the appellate authority as per Rule 69 of the Service Rules.
Although the account opening form in the case of Shri O.S. Srivastava is number traceable, it is apparent from the account opening form of Shri Surinder Kumar, that the account was allowed authorized by you.
Charge No.
The charged officer was informed that it was decided to hold a departmental inquiry against him in terms of Rule 68 2 ii of the Service Rules read with Rule 67 in support of the above mentioned charges.
decided to dismiss the charged officer from service in terms of Rule 67 j of the Service Rules read with Rule 68 of the Service Rules.
Charge No.2 You granted and opened under your authentication Demand Loan Accounts in the name of Fictitious number existent persons against pledge of fictitious NSCs with a view to avail yourself the Banks funds unauthorisedly and in an illegal manner.
Credit Society Ltd. Unnao for Rs.500/ on Kalpi Road Kanpur Branch, where numberSavings Bank Account in your name existed in the books of that Branch.
Charge No.12 You issued a Cheque number315083 dated 4.4.86 for Rs.6030.08 favouring M s Society Jewellers which was returned unpaid due to insufficient balance in your account number38.
Both the account holders were fictitious number existent.
The requisite cheque book requisition slips or your specific requests for issue of cheque books are number available.
ii You issued cheque number 315830 dated 23.6.87 for Rs.4,061/ favouring M s Bhagat Ram Jai Narain without maintaining sufficient balance in your savings Bank Account No.38.
The Disciplinary Authority vide letter No.
Charge No.3 You availed a companyveyance loan for Rs.78,000/ for purchase of a Car.
Charge No.11 In your Savings Bank Account No.
It shows your alleged involvement in the fraud.
Business Branch Kanpur shows frequent credit transactions both cash and transfer other than salary for heavy amounts which you companyld number explain properly.
Due to the false and misleading information furnished by you to the then Branch Manager, these cheques were allowed on both the occasions.
9095 in the name of Shri Surinder Kumar.
Thus, you issued cheque without maintaining sufficient balance in your account.
The charged officer filed his reply on 29.03.1995 for the charges levelled against him.
