Partha Banerjee vs State Bank of India and Others

Tapen Sen, J.—The Court: Normally this Court does not interfere with the orders of suspension, but in this case this Court notices that the show-cause Notice dated 22nd April, 2010 was specific as it had listed the charges which are as follows:

i) That you are a staff of State Bank of India, Burra Bazar Branch, is not mentioned anywhere in the proposal;

ii) IT returns along with capital A/c Form-16 was not submitted by

iii) In your Bio-data form you have not mentioned the major source of your income.

By reason of the said Notice, the following misconducts were also specified:

i) You have provided guarantee without any prior sanction of administrative approval of the Competent Authority in the A/c of M/s Shivam Enterprise ( A/c No. 30777518458 ) at our Mankundu Branch.

ii) You have furnished your Bio-data as guarantor of M/s Shivam Enterprise without mentioning that you are a staff member of Bank which tantamounts to suppression of fact.

iii) Being associated with Smt. Sukanya Banerjee as well as the Bank, you are well aware that the A/c of M/s B.S. Enterprise was NPA since 25.12.2008. However, this fact was suppressed by you as you have, though an affidavit submitted that the borrower of M/s Shivam Enterprise was not a defaulter in any loan in any Bank as on 15.01.2009.

However, after the Petitioner filed his Reply on 7th May, 2010, the Bank on its part suddenly issued the impugned order of suspension in which they specified charges against the Petitioner to the effect that he had committed gross misconduct by engaging in trade or business outside the scope of his duties and indulging in acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank which were likely to cause serious loss to the Bank.

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, these were charges which had no connection at all with the misconducts listed in the show-cause Notice and, therefore, it must be deemed to have been issued mechanically. He further submits that the misconducts mentioned in the order of suspension are also vague.

Having heard the Parties, this Court is of the view that this matter requires consideration on Affidavits. 10 days'' time is given to the learned Counsel for the Respondents to file his Affidavit-in-Opposition. One week thereafter is given to the Petitioner to file his Reply.

Let this matter appear in the list under the same heading on 6th August, 2010.

In the meantime, there shall be stay of operation of the order of suspension dated 14th May, 2010. All actions taken will be subject to the result of the Writ Petition.

All parties concerned are to act on a Photostat signed copy of this Order on usual undertakings.