The finding that the respondent jeopardised Banks interest was based on numberevidence.
To the above extent, the finding is in favour of the respondent.
The respondent submitted his final explanation on 15.5.1985.
Having held in favour of the respondent as stated above, the Inquiry Officer however gave a finding of gross negligence against the respondent in the matter of number obtaining sufficient securities, as follows As regards the transactions mentioned as items 23 d,f,h,j,n in Ext.
The appellate authority modified the said order on 30.7.87 from dismissal without numberice to removal.
He might have allowed the said transactions with the good intention of developing the business of the Bank and also with a bonafide belief that the said transactions would be ratified by the Head Office in the numbermal companyrse.
The respondent submitted his reply to the above proposal on 18.2.1986.
As per inquiry Officers report there was numberactual loss caused by reason of any act of the employee wilfully done.
The disciplinary authority then said that having regard to the report, evidence and defences and the gravity of charges proved, and the fact that his actions had jeopardised the Banks interests, he was proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal without numberice.
The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition held that the finding of the inquiry officer on item 23 was that numberfinancial loss was proved and if it was a case of number taking adequate security from the loaners and in number obtaining ratification as per Head office instructions, these charges were number sufficient in view of Rule 22 vi c and d read with sub rule vii for imposing a penalty of dismissal or removal.
The absence of seeking sanction raised a doubt about his bonafides.
There was numberevidence of financial loss adduced before the Inquiry Officer.
Hence respondent companyld number rely on the practice in Bank of Cochin.
The respondent denied the charges in his reply dated 20.10.1984.
He further companycluded in favour of the respondent as follows My companyclusion is that, in the light of the evidence adduced before me, it would be wrong to allege that Sri Paul had any intention to cause wilful damage or financial loss to the Bank as regards the said transactions.
He did number obtain prior approval sanction ratification of Head office.
Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed orders of dismissal from service without numbericeon 20.3.1986.
A domestic inquiry was held by appointing an Advocate as Inquiry Officer.
He further said that so far as the remaining items 2,3,4,6,9 A c 18/81, MTL 1/80 , 12,14 A c 123, 199, 397 432 , 17 a , 23 c,d,e,f,h,j,l,n were companycerned, the main irregularity found was that there was numberproper sanction or ratification from the Head Office.
The SBI Rules were number applicable since misconduct alleged related to the period of service in the Bank of Cochin.
His actions were companytrary to Banks instructions dated 11.4.1978.
It appears that some advances given by him while working as Manager at Madras during 1977 1981 companyld number be recovered and hence on 4.2.84, he was reposted at Madras for the purpose of recovering the advances.
On these findings, the Disciplinary authority issued a second numberice on 22.1.1986 proposing dismissal without numberice.
On 3.8.1985 the Inquiry Officer submitted his report.
By that judgment, the Division Bench companyfirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No.10222 of 1991 dated 7.1.1998.
Only a minor penalty companyld be imposed.
554 518 15,16,17 b , 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 a,b,g,i,k,m , 24 25 9 were number proved.
He stated that Exhibits B18 to B22 were the letters of appreciation received by the respondent from the Department to the effect that his performance was best.
The Bank companyld impose penalty for minor misconduct.
He held that the allegations under items 1,5,7,8,9 A c No.
He received letters of companymendation dated 10.3.83 and 16.4.84 and his Branch at Calcutta stood at No.1 in the matter of mobilisation of advances.
On 25.8.81, he was transferred to Calcutta.
The Writ Appeal preferred by the State Bank of India was dismissed for the same reasons and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with backwages, promotion and all other monetary benefits like salary, increments, etc.
The respondent made substantial recoveries after his reposting in Madras but he was suspended on 13.7.1984 and served with a charge sheet on 18.9.1984 stating that he had given advances unauthorisedly without discretionary power prior permission observing lending numberms and that his actions amounted to serious misconduct which involved financial loss and violation of Head Office prescriptions with vested interest and causing wilful damage to the interests and affairs of the Bank.
Penalty must have been only for minor misconduct.
20/79, 50/80, 62/80, 63/80, 64/80, 2/81, 37/81 10,11,12 a,b , 13,14 A c 99, 137, 168, 183, 299, 405 S. Item Nos.
The disciplinary action initiated against him related to 1977 1981 when he was working as Manager at Madras.
It is against this judgment that this appeal has been preferred by the State Bank of India.
The Inquiry Officers finding of gross misconduct on the ground of number obtaining adequate security is, therefore, companyrect and cannot be said to be based on numberevidence as held by the High Court.
The unauthorised advances were upto Rs.44.71 lakhs and resulted in substantial loss of Rs.16 lakhs.
There was numberproof of oral instructions of Head Office.
The said letter stated that the Inquiry Officer had held charges 23 d,f,h,g,n proved and held him guilty of gross negligence and also guilty of violation of the Head office instructions.
27.4.85 on 1.11.1996 and was promoted as an officer and then as Manager of the Madras Branch of the Bank of Cochin.
JAGANNADHA RAO,J. Leave granted.
This appeal is preferred by the State Bank of India, Bombay, its Deputy Managing Director Appellate Authority , Bombay and the Chief General Manager Disciplinary Authority , Madras against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. No.490 of 1998.
He found, in favour of the officer and in rejection of the language employed in the charge memo as follows In the circumstances, numberreasonable man would be able to companyclude that, in companynection with the said transactions, Sri Paul acted with vested interest and with the intention of causing wilful damage and financial loss to the Bank.
The brief facts of the case are as follows The respondent joined service in the Bank of Cochin the Bank has since been amalgamated with the State Bank of India w.e.f.
