Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The petitioner was to retire on March 31, 1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. Oh the eve of his retirement on March 23, 1998 he was served with a show cause notice dated March 21, 1998 asking him to submit his reply in terms of Rule 68(2)(iii) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') against the charge as set out in the Articles of Charges based on the statement of imputations of misconduct accompanying the notice. The petitioner was apprised thereby that a proceeding under the Rules was proposed to be held in respect of the irregularities committed by him as reflected in the charges and the statement of imputations of misconduct during his posting as General Manager (Commercial Banking) at Guwahati Local Head office.

10. It has been pleaded that prior to the notice containing the charges, the Chief General Manager (North Eastern Region) had by letter dated February 27, 1998 called for an explanation from the petitioner in respect of the same allegations as embodied in the statement of imputations of misconduct. The petitioner having already replied to the said allegations, he submitted his written statement of defence on March 31, 1998 denying the charges and/or allegations and also enclosed the copy of his earlier reply in support of his stand. While denying the allegations, the petitioner maintained that his action had been in tune with the bank's policies and practices with a view to maximize its business and profits.

22. A bare perusal thereof, would indicate that the accompanying imputations of misconduct enumerating his alleged culpable acts form an integral part of the charge. Reference of the Statement of Imputations of Misconduct in view of the manner in which the charge has been structured being unavoidable, the same is set out hereinbelow:

"During his tenure as General Manager (commercial Banking) at Guwahati Local Head Office, Shri M.R.A. Laskar, TEGS-VII is alleged to have committed the following lapses in the sanction and conduct of advances of Kothari Group of Units.

26. Rule 50 out lines the conduct to be displayed by the Bank officials while in service. The charge framed alleged that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duties with devotion and diligence and that he had acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank official highly prejudicial to the bank's interest in violation of Rule 50(4). The petitioner being a highly placed Bank official at the relevant time was expectedly conversant with the bank procedure and therefore having regard to the charges as framed read with the Statements of Imputations of Misconduct, it is not possible to hold that the same was incomprehensible or (sic) unfathomable to him. In other words, having regard to the language of the charge and the details provided in the Statement of Imputations of Misconduct, the contention of breach of Rule 68(2)(iii) of the Rules cannot be upheld.