ASHOK KUMAR MONGA Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the report dated 22nd September, 2000 of the Inquiry Officer, order dated 29th November, 2000 of the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 2nd February, 2001 of the Appellate Authority of the respondent Bank dismissing / rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the order of dismissal. The petitioner also claims a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Bank to reinstate him with full salary, allowances and consequential benefits etc. The act of misconduct for which the petitioner has been dismissed from service otherwise relates back to 23rd March, 1981, discovered on 2nd/3rd March, 1982; the petitioner was suspended from service w.e.f. 7th April, 1982 and charge sheeted on 5th December, 1983. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 30th May, 1985 of the Disciplinary Authority and the appeal then preferred by the petitioner dismissed on 23rd August, 1985. The petitioner then preferred W.P.(C) No.1982/1987 in this Court and which was allowed on 31st August, 1999 on technical grounds of the likely bias of the then Inquiry Officer and of the official who had then passed the order of the dismissal of the petitioner being not the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner under the rules. A review petition was then filed by the respondent Bank; vide order dated 11th February, 2000 the respondent Bank was permitted to hold fresh inquiry against the petitioner as per the charge-sheet already served. Thereafter, a fresh inquiry proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the inquiry report, order of Disciplinary Authority and order of Appellate Authority, impugned in the present petition, came to be made / passed.

(2.) The incident relates to the Chawri Bazar Branch of the respondent Bank described by the petitioner himself as a very small branch. The petitioner had a long stint in the said branch having been posted there from 1967 till 1976 and then again from 1977 till his suspension and termination as aforesaid. The fact that the incident occurred is also not in dispute. The incident was of issuance by the said branch of the Bank of three Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) for a short period of 46 days of Rs.20,000/- each without receipt of any money and encashment thereof immediately after the expiry of the said 46 days. The person in whose name the FDRs were issued turned out to be a fictitious person. It is also not in dispute that there was a corresponding fudging of the accounts and the incident aforesaid came to light when holder of other FDRs issued by the said branch of the respondent Bank, presented the same for payment; however as per the respondent Banks record (and which was found to be fudged) the other FDRs had been shown as already paid prior to the date of their maturity. The amount of the FDRs of the said genuine holder had been shown in the records of the respondent Bank as the FDRs in favour of the fictitious person aforesaid. To the said extent, there is no dispute. The dispute raised by the petitioner is only of his role in the incident aforesaid.

(3.) With respect to the aforesaid role, it is also not in dispute that the FDRs were signed by the petitioner as Accountant and countersigned by the Manager of the respondent Bank. The specimen signatures of the fictitious person had also been obtained by the petitioner and verified by him. The petitioner claims to have done the same on the basis of the "Transfer Credit Voucher" received from the Deposits Department. The Inquiry Officer has also found that the entries in the books of the respondent Bank which were found to be fudged to have been so fudged by the petitioner.