9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Regulation 68(2)(iii) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Officers' Service Regulations 1979. 2. Non-furnishing of the enquiry report to the accused before removal. 3. Lack of application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. 4. Absence of reasons in the Appellate Authority's dismissal of the appeal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Regulation 68(2)(iii): The trial court found that the provisions of Regulation 68(2)(iii) were violated as no definite and distinct charges were framed against Grover, and he was punished based on a show cause notice without being furnished a statement of allegations. The Supreme Court examined the letter dated April 3, 1980, which served as the charge-sheet. The letter detailed the misconduct, including the demand and acceptance of a bribe of Rs. 300 from Maniram. The Court noted that the letter complied with the requirements of the Bank's Circular No.46 of 1961, which was in effect at the time. Even if the Regulations were applicable, the Court found that the letter, along with the enclosed complaint from Maniram, satisfied the requirement of a 'statement of allegations' as per Regulation 68. The Court concluded that Grover was fully apprised of the accusations, thereby substantially complying with the Regulation. 2. Non-furnishing of the Enquiry Report: The trial court's finding that the order of removal was bad due to non-furnishing of the enquiry report was challenged based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Managing Director ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, which held that orders of punishment passed before November 30, 1990, should not be disturbed for non-furnishing of the enquiry report. Grover's counsel conceded that this finding could not be sustained in light of the ECIL judgment. 3. Lack of Application of Mind by the Disciplinary Authority: The trial court found that the Disciplinary Authority had not applied its mind before passing the order of punishment and merely agreed with the Enquiry Officer's findings. The Supreme Court referred to Regulation 68(3), which requires the Disciplinary Authority to record reasons only if it directs a fresh or further enquiry or disagrees with the Enquiry Officer's findings. Since the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the Enquiry Officer, there was no obligation to record reasons. The Court found that the Disciplinary Authority had gone through the entire proceeding and applied its mind, thereby fulfilling its duty. 4. Absence of Reasons in the Appellate Authority's Dismissal: The trial court found that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without giving any reason. The Supreme Court referred to Regulation 70(2), which outlines the Appellate Authority's duties but does not explicitly require reasons to be recorded. Even assuming an implicit requirement to give reasons, the Court found that the Appellate Authority had considered the records and proceedings of the disciplinary action and Grover's submissions. The order demonstrated that the Appellate Authority had applied its mind and found no substance in the appeal. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Bank, finding that the departmental proceedings were not vitiated by any breach of Regulation 68(2)(iii) and that the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities were valid. Consequently, Grover's appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.
|
