VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 322
659
H.K. Dogra vs. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India,
1989 (2) SLR P&H 122
The petitioner, Officer, Grade-II, State Bank of India, was
dealt with in disciplinary proceedings and dismissed from service. It
was contended by the petitioner that non-communication of the report
of the Chief Vigilance Officer was violative.
The High Court held that the impugned order of dismissal
from service of the petitioner cannot be upheld, as serious prejudice
has been caused by non-supply of the material to him which has
been relied upon by the disciplinary authority while imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service. There is a complete violation
of the principles of natural justice and denial of reasonable opportunity
to the petitioner. The petitioner was not supplied the report of the
Vigilance Department on the basis whereof the show cause notice
was issued proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Even
if there has been a practice prevalent in the Bank that before imposing
punishment on a delinquent officer the record of the Inquiry Officer is
shown to the officer of the Vigilance Department by the Bank and its
opinion is obtained still it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority
that before relying upon the opinion of the Vigilance Department,
such an opinion must be brought to the notice of the delinquent officer.
This course was not adopted in the present case. Since the petitioner
was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer on various charges as
reproduced in the inquiry report with which the disciplinary authority
disagreed by taking into consideration the opinion recorded by the
Vigilance Department, the petitioner was kept in the dark about the
opinion of the Vigilance Department and had no opportunity on any
occasion to meet the same. It is not disputed that the opinion of the
Vigilance Department of the Bank had been relied upon by the
disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment of dismissal from