Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 958 (RAJ)

R. N. Gupta v. The State Bank of Bikaner

2005-04-01

GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2005
Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 22.06.1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court wherein the dismissal of the appellant from the post of Branch Manager in the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur was held to be legal and valid. 2. The appellant was working at Sahibabad Branch of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in the year 1976 when a charge-sheet was served upon him levelling five charges. The charge-sheet indicated that the appellant had demanded and accepted bribe from various persons and had sanctioned loan as also disbursed the same to them without proper sanction of the head office. He had further granted bonus to different persons by procuring signatures of part time employees on blank papers and the savings bank account of one Shri Dinesh Chandra Bansal was closed without his request, on false ground. The appellant in response to the charge-sheet, submitted a reply and denied all the charges which were alleged against him after which an enquiry was conducted in regard to the charges. The appellant had full opportunity to participate in the enquiry and all the documents sought by him were supplied after which he had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but he failed to disprove the charges. Thus, the enquiry which was conducted against him did not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to afford a chance to the appellant to challenge the legality of the same. The charges having been proved against the appellant, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment imposing penalty of his dismissal from services. 3. The appellant, thereafter challenged the order of his dismissal by filing a writ petition bearing SB CWP No. 895 of 1982 which was heard and decided by the learned Single Judge on 22.06.1992 and the writ petition was dismissed by a speaking Judgment and order against which this appeal has been preferred as already stated hereinbefore. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, we have not been able to detect any ground which could persuade this Court to entertain this appeal against the impugned Judgment and order. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, we have not been able to detect any ground which could persuade this Court to entertain this appeal against the impugned Judgment and order. It is sufficiently clear that the respondent authorities had complied with all the legal requirements of the enquiry in regard to the charges levelled against the appellant and the appellant, had full opportunity to meet the same by resorting to all the ingredients of a legal fair and just enquiry and yet he failed to refute and disprove the charges. 5. No other ground or argument was advanced before us to assail the impugned Judgment and order. 6. Under the circumstance, if penalty of dismissal from service has been passed, it is difficult for this Court to interfere with the same. This appeal thus, has no merit and hence stands dismissed; but without costs.