4176 of 1988 The respondent Vijaya Kumar was appointed as a Proba tionary Officer Gr.
In order to appreciate the companytroversy, facts in brief are stated of all these cases.
I Officer by an Order of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India on 7.12.71.
The respondent was charge sheeted in respect of gross irregularities and companyrupt ?
In respect of certain alleged acts of misfeasance malfeasance he was suspended on 17.8.81.
401 practices and was ultimately dismissed from service by an order dated 22.12.88 passed by the Chief General Manager of the Bank.
While dealing with the cross objections filed by Shri Hanumantha Rao the Bench took numberice of the fact that the writ petitioner had died on 24.11.87 and as such gave the following direction On account of the death of the writ petitioner it is unnec essary for us to go into the merits of the companytentions urged by way of cross objections.
Shri Soundararajan filed a writ petition No.
The Division Bench heard and disposed of the writ appeal No.
The Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India, local head office Hyderabad dismissed Hanumantha Rao by an order dated 7.1.84.
141/86 dated 26.11.87.
Shri A.K. Soundararajan aggrieved against the Order of the High Court has filed this Special Leave Peti tion.
Post of Technical Officer was companysidered equivalent to Staff Officer Grade III under the Rules.
2069 of 1990 In this case Shri A.K. Soundararajan appellant was appointed as Technical Officer by an order dated 14.6.68 of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank.
194/83 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging his order of dismissal.
1204/84 in the case of T. Dayakar Rao.
It was mentioned in the Order that Shri Soundararajan would be governed by the State Bank of India Officers Assistants Service Rules.
Hanumantha Rao was promoted as Grade I Officer on 1.4.1973 by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of State Bank of India.
Shri Vijay Kumar filed a writ petition No.
A Division Bench of the High Court heard the writ petition alongwith writ appeal No.
The State Bank aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge filed an appeal before the Division Bench.
The Bank aggrieved against the aforesaid order has filed the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitu tion.
12041/84 and dated 26.11.1987 in W.P. No.
In the month of July, 1971 he was selected as a Trainee Officer and was given job training at various branches of the Bank for two years.
T. Dayakar Rao filed a writ petition No.
141/86 and writ petition No.
K. Goswamy, Additional Solicitor General, M.K. Ramamurthy, C. Sitaramaiya, M.L. Paul, Kailash Vasdev, Ms. M. Rasaily, M.A. Krishnamurthy, Mrs. C. Ramamurthy, V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Ms. Majula Gupta for the Appearing Parties.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.
On 4.5.82 a memo of charges was served on Hanumantha Rao by the Chief General Manager of the Bank.
The Bank aggrieved against the order of the Learned Single Judge filed a Letters Patent Appeal No.
141/86 before the Division Bench.
The State Bank aggrieved against the afore said order of the High Court passed in writ petition No.
1204/84 in the High Court.
Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition declaring the order of dismissal as incompe tent and invalid.
15235 of 1988 In this case the respondent T. Dayakar Rao was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank of India in the month of Octo ber, 1962.
SLP No.
The Divi sion Bench in this case took into companysideration an amendment made in Regulation 55 by a resolution dated 25.8.88 made applicable with retrospective effect.
141/86 and allowed the writ petition but dismissed the writ appeal by order dated 26.11.87.
SLP No.
194/83 has filed this special leave petition.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
He was suspended and given a chargesheet on 23.4.82 and was dismissed by an order dated 31.3.83 passed by the Chief General Manager.
194/83 by a companymon order.
The Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 13th August, 1988 allowed the writ petition following the decision of Division Bench given in writ appeal No.
1989 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. No.
The High Court has allowed the writ petition only on one ground that the appointing authority of Vijaya Kumar was Executive Committee of the Bank and as such Chief General Manager being an authority lower than the appointing authority was number companype tent to pass an order of dismissal.
7108/85 in the High Court challenging his order of dismissal.
Hanumantha Rao filed a writ petition No.
3392 3394 of 1990.
In 1979 he was posted as the Manager of a branch of the Bank in Warangal District.
Post this Writ Appeal for orders after two weeks.
The Division Bench by Order dated 30th November, 1989 allowed the appeal filed by the Bank.
Disci plinary proceedings were initiated on 29.7.82.
All the above cases are disposed of by one single order as identical questions of law are involved in all these cases.
While he was working as a Bank Manager he was chargesheeted for irregularities companymitted by him during the period 1.9.79 to 15.6.80.
5509/84 in the High Court.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 31.10.88 allowed the writ petition by following the decision given by the Division Bench in writ petition No.
The Bank aggrieved against the aforesaid order filed the SLP No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.
194 of 1983.
On 6.3.84 the Chief General Manager in the capacity of disciplinary au thority passed an order of dismissal.
269/89, dated 30.8.1988 in W.P. No.
5139/88 State Bank of India v. Hanumantha Rao disposed of by an order of this Court dated 30th January, 1990.
