S ELHANCE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-489
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 12,2013

S Elhance Appellant
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF ORISSA VS. BIDYABHUSHAN MOHAPATRA [REFERRED]
V RAMANA VS. APSRTC [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The respondent served a chargesheet upon the appellant in terms of Rule 50(A)(i) of SBI (Supervisory) Staff Service Rules. The said chargesheet contained four allegations against the appellant. On receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 27th April, 1993, concurred with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer expect on part of charges No.3 and 4 whereby the Inquiry Officer had also held the appellant guilty of claiming fictitious medical bill. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order removing the appellant from service.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal but during pendency of the said appeal, he also filed W.P.(C) No. 4901/1993 before this Court. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 11th February, 1994.

(2.)Vide order dated 22nd September, 1999, the writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed of concluding that the finding of the Inquiring Authority on the third and fourth charge alone had withstood the judicial scrutiny. The learned Single Judge who passed the aforesaid order was of the view that the quantum of punishment was required to be looked into afresh by the Appellate Authority. It was also observed by the learned Judge that this was a case where irregularity had been found in claiming reimbursement of medical bill over a period of seven years. It was further observed that neither the Disciplinary Authority not the Appellate Authority had considered the proportionality of the punishment though it was for the Appellate Authority to see as to what would be the appropriate punishment In the light of only two charges having been established against the appellant. The order removing the appellant from service was accordingly set aside and the Appellate Authority was directed to consider the proportionality of punishment and pass an appropriate order.
(3.)The order dated 22nd September, 2009 was challenged by the respondent by way of LPA No.21/2010 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 13th August, 2010. The LPA No.664/2005 which the appellant had filed was withdrawn by him on 16th September, 2010.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.