R V CHIMMALAGI Vs. CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in respondent Kr ishna Grameena Bank at Humnabad Branch. He has since retired on attaining age of superannuation on 01s t March 2010. On the al legation that despite 'stop payment' letter issued by the account holder to stop payment of cheque No.120127 in respect of account No.CA-324 held by one Sri.Mal l ikar jun S.Pat il , payment was not stopped and a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- was paid in the routine course of transaction of the Bank and as the Bank had reimbursed the said amount to the account holder, action was taken to recover hal f the amount from the petitioner and other hal f from the accountant. This made the petitioner to submit a representation to the discipl inary authority raising objection regarding recovery made without holding any enquiry. The discipl inary authority did not respond. Hence, he made a representation to the higher authority, namely the appel late authority i .e. , the Board of Directors.

(2.) The Board of Directors passed an order directing initiation of domestic enquiry. Accordingly, a domestic enquiry was held by appointing an enquiry of f icer. After recording evidence, the enquiry of f icer recorded his f inding, holding that charges were not proved. Enquiry of f icer speci f ical ly found that the letter written by the Account holder requesting stop payment had not been signed by him and that the cheque number mentioned in the stop payment letter was 120127, whereas the cheque for which amount was paid on 10th November 2008 was 020127 and further, that there were material alterations in the letter dated 16th October 2008. After the enquiry of f icer submitted his report dated 05th February 2010, no action was taken by the Bank either by accepting the report or by refusing to accept the same.

(3.) In the meanwhi le, on 26th February 2010, petitioner attained the age of superannuation and was rel ieved from his duties. As the petitioner was not paid the amount withheld and recovered, he has f i led this Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to act in accordance with law by concluding the process of enquiry providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and for a further direction to refund the money immediately, along with interest at 12%.