This has tarnished the image of the bank and resulted in your arrest by the local police on 16th October, 1986 and thereafter on 23rd October, 1986 under sections 353, 448 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
Katni Market, Churcha and Shahdol branches.
Churcha Branch You disobeyed the lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors.
During the said period, it may be mentioned, he was posted in different branches.
One Shri R.K. Sharma, Branch Manager, having been abused and threatened to be hit by shoes by the Appellant, lodged two First Information Reports FIR against the Appellant pursuant whereto two cases under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code were initiated in respect of the incidents which took place on 16.10.1986 and 23.10.1986.
He was, however, acquitted of the charges levelled against him in the criminal proceedings by a learned Judicial Magistrate by a judgment dated 7.5.1988, inter alia, on the ground that the same companyld number be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Further PEX 4 was written by Shri Tiwari on receipt of the letter of Regional Office DEX 3 .
Before the said Inquiry Officer several witnesses were examined.
On earlier occasion also, he was found guilty for misbehaviour wherefor, he had been censured.
An Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the said charges.
The order shall be effective from the date of receipt of this letter by you.
In respect of allegation No.2, on perusal of deposition of Shri K.C. Tiwari the maker of PEX 3 I find that DEX 1 was written by him under pressure of the charge sheeted official.
Further, you will also number be paid the salary and allowances for the period of your suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid to you, as the period of suspension has been treated as such by me.
A Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the Appellant thereagainst was also dismissed by a reasoned order.
I have, therefore, decided to inflict upon you the penalty of Removal from service in terms of Rule No.49 g of the State Bank of India Supervising Staff Service Rules governing your services in the Bank read with Rule No.50 3 iii ibid.,
The above charges, if proved, are tantamount to misconduct in companytravention of Rules 32 1 and 32 4 and 5 of the State Bank of India Supervising Staff Service Rules governing our services.
which I hereby do.
Documentary evidences were also adduced by the parties.
The Disciplinary Authority, however, differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as regards the said charge No.2 and recommended for his dismissal from services to the Appointing Authority stating I am in agreement with the findings of the Inquiring Authority in respect of all the allegation charges except allegations charge No.2.
He was thereafter allowed to join his duties.
By your acts you intentionally showed insubordination to the superior authorities of the Bank.
You also crossed the boundaries of decorum and decency.
The Appellant herein, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Your acts are unbecoming of officer of the Bank.
The Appellant therein exhibited four documents in support of his case.
The 1st Respondent also exhibited some documents.
You thus acted in a manner unbecoming of an official of the Bank.
You have acted in a manner unbecoming of an official of the Bank.
By your acts you disobeyed the lawful and reasonable orders of the Bank.
The Inquiry Officer companysidered all the materials brought on record, including the judgment passed in his favour in the criminal case.
On or about 29.9.1984 he is said to have misbehaved with the Regional Manager of the Bank.
The Appellant was found guilty of all the charges except the charge No.2.
In relation to each of the charges, the witnesses, indisputably, were cross examined.
The Appellant, however, despite imposition of the said penalties on him, started misbehaving with the senior officers again as also with the customers by using abusive language and passing derogatory remarks during the period 8.9.1986 to 27.9.1986.
He filed a writ petition questioning the legality of the said order, which was dismissed.
Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him on 26.11.1984.
Jabalpur Regional Office You failed to obey the reasonable and lawful orders of the Bank and behaved in a manner unbecoming of an official of the Bank.
However, to reduce the financial hardships faced by the appellant, I am inclined to companysider the period of suspension from 11.11.1986 to 22.7.1990 on duty.
The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued a charge sheet against him for his purported misbehaviour during the period 8.9.1986 to 27.9.1986 to which we have referred to hereinbefore.
Shahdol Branch 4.
As regards the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority, so far as charge No.2 is companycerned, he stated The enquiring authority held this charge disproved but the disciplinary authority reversed the findings of E A and deemed the charge as proved.
You also showed insubordination to the superior authorities.
You disregarded the lawful instructions of the superiors.
The nature and extent of the misbehaviour indicates that the established authorities of the Bank and certain other functionaries in the Regional Office and engendering indiscipline amongst the staff.
The Appellant also entered into defence and several documents on his behalf were exhibited.
You created a feeling of insecurity amongst the staff members.
a By your acts you have disobeyed the lawful instructions of the superiors.
You also displayed gross negligence in performance of your duties.
However, numberhing has been established during the companyrse of the enquiry that the letter PEX 3 was written under pressure.
A disciplinary proceeding was started against him.
Similarly, in relation to each other charge witnesses were examined on behalf of the 1st Respondent they were cross examined and documents were exhibited.
He was found guilty of the misconduct alleged against him.
The charges levelled against him were as under Katni Market Branch You created an unpleasant scene and atmosphere by using unparliamentary language against the local authorities of the Branch in a calculated attempt to denigrate the said authority, which act of yours damaged tarnished the image of the Bank.
Please numbere that a companyy of this order is being placed in your service file.
You have thus acted in a manner unbecoming of an official of the Bank.
He was placed under suspension.
He was placed under suspension by an order dated 11.11.1986 by the Disciplinary Authority stating It has been reported that soon after your reinstatement on 16th August, 1986 on companyclusion of major penalty proceedings against you, you again misbehaved with your companyleagues, senior officer and also some of the outsiders and used abusive language passing derogatory remarks during your recent stay at different branches viz.
B. SINHA, J The Appellant herein was working as a Junior Manager, Grade I in a Branch office of the 1st Respondent Bank, herein.
