The appellant thereafter took up the matter in appeal and the Board of Directors of the bank companysidered the same in detail and companyfirmed the order of removal whereafter a review petition was filed before the reviewing companymittee which also after taking into companysideration all the pros and companys of the matter did number find it expedient to interfere with the appellate order.
Subsequently, on 21.1.1983 a chargesheet was issued against the appellant framing the following charges in the departmental proceedings That the petitioner purchased cheques from traders for substantial amounts without ascertaining genuineness of transactions in excess of Rs.
The short facts are that the appellant joined the service in the State Bank of India in its Khura Branch in the district of Bulandshaher U.P. as money tester on 26.5.1964 and was duly companyfirmed on the said post.
It appears that different officers were appointed from time to time to companyduct the departmental enquiry against the appellant but ultimately the enquiry companymenced before Shri N. Dhingra, who informed the appellant of the time and place of enquiry to be companyducted and before whom list of documents to be relied upon on behalf of the bank was produced by the Presenting Officer.
That the petitioner paid cheques passed debits relating to certain accounts without positing them striking balance in the ledger, thus companycealing the overdrafts.
As P.Ws.
That the petitioner afforded credits to parties by debit to suspense account in anticipation of realisation of cheques in clearing of SCS.
During the companyrse of the enquiry on 19.10.1983, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and cross examined.
On 12.4.1984 certain documents were produced on behalf of the defence but neither the defence representative appeared number a single witness was produced on behalf of the appellant and, therefore, the companyducting officer decided to companyclude the enquiry, which was initiated in the year 1981, and number to postpone the same further and submitted his report dated 22nd June, 1984.
2, 3, 5 and 7 were proved whereas charge number 1 was partially proved and in relation to charge No.4 the companyducting officer did number give any specific finding, but charge No.6 according to the companyducting officer companyld number be proved.
4 and 5 were number cross examined, 28.12.1983 and 14.2.1984 were fixed as dates respectively for their cross examination but they were number cross examined on those two dates by the defence, ultimately these two witnesses companyld be cross examined on 20.3.1984 on which date list of witnesses was also furnished for the first time by the defence for their examination and 11.4.1984 and 12.4.1984 were the dates fixed for their examination.
The appellant then filed a writ application before the High Court which was dismissed by a learned single Judge after thoroughly companysidering the entire matter and the same has been affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal by Division Bench of the High Court which necessitated filing of a petition before this Court for grant of special leave to appeal in which leave having been granted, the present appeal is before us.
In the meantime, it appears one Shri B.R. Sharma Officer MMG Scale III was appointed as companyducting officer who was later on replaced by one Shri Hardit Singh, Officer SMAGS IV before whom on 5.10.1983 the Presenting Officer filed a list of witnesses to be examined on behalf of the bank.
On 8.11.1983, which was the next date, Ws.
4 and 5 were examined by the Presenting Officer but were number cross examined on that date on behalf of the defence.
On 11.4.1984 neither the defence representative attended the enquiry proceeding number the appellant produced any defence witness, rather he filed petition for adjournment upon which the enquiry was adjourned to 12.4.1984.
Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the Chief General Manager of the bank by an order dated 8.2.1985 passed the order of removal of the appellant from the service of the bank acting under Rule 49 g of the State Bank of India Supervising Staff Service Rules after duly companysidering the entire matter.
A shortage of Rs.100/ in cash balance was detected at the extension companynter during a surprise verification on 13.10.1980.
Thereafter, he was promoted as officer grade II and transferred to Agra in the year 1975 and later on in the year 1977 he was shifted to Faridabad branch of the bank and posted there as Officer in charge of the extension companynter, Sewa Samiti, which companynter was to handle transactions relating to deposit accounts, outward remittance and issues and encashment of rupees travellers cheques only with one man handling.
On 13.10.1980 one Shri K.C. Batra, circle Auditor inspected the accounts of the said extension companynter and found serious financial irregularities therein and reported the matter to Circle Vigilance Officer whereupon the appellant was suspended from the service of the bank when the departmental proceeding was under companytemplation.
In his enquiry report the companyducting officer, after detailed companysideration, found that charge Nos.
Thereafter, on 2.12.1983 P.W. 6 was examined and cross examined.
10,000/ That the petitioner allowed overdrafts to various parties unauthorisedly in excess of Rs.10,000/ .
N.AGRAWAL, J. LITTTTTTTJ This appeal by special leave has been preferred challenging the order passed by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal whereby the same was dismissed upholding an order passed by learned single Judge of that Court companyfirming the order of removal of the appellant from the service of the bank after exhausting the internal remedies.
