Patna High CourtL.P.A/129/2015dismissed

Sheoshankar Prasad Singh v. The State Bank Of India And ORS

2015-09-09Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.129 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3070 of 2014 =========================================================== Sheoshankar Prasad Singh, Son of Muneshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Chanakya Nagar, Kumhrar, P.S. Agamkuan in the District o Patna. .... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The State Bank of India through the Chief General Manager, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna

2. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Vigilance Department, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna.

3. The Deputy General Manager-cum-disciplinary authority, State of Bank of India, Zonal Office, J.C. Road, Patna.

4. The Chief Manager-cum-Enquiry Authority, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Gandhi Maidan Patna.

5. The Manager (Vigilance and Presenting Officer, Vigilance Department , State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the S.B.I :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 09-09-2015 The delay in filing of this memo of appeal is condoned.

Heard with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant for the purpose of final disposal. Having perused the order of learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere, though, it is a matter of dismissal. The allegation, in the disciplinary proceeding,

Patna High Court LPA No.129 of 2015 dt.09-09-2015 2.

was that the appellant, who was the writ petitioner, being an officer in the State Bank of India had manipulated in the account of the Bank for his benefit. He had accepted the same in the disciplinary proceeding, but had sought to explain that he had unintentionally and in state of depression made those manipulations.

In view of his own admission, we are of the view that being an officer in the Bank and in view of the conduct, the punishment of dismissal is not in any manner disproportionate. There being no other infirmity in either procedure and as we are not sitting in appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajeev/N.A.F.R.