SYNDICATE BANK Vs. BAKHTAWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The syndicate Bank has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 13.5.1999 passed in C.W.P. No. 2786 of 1993. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

(2.) Respondent No. 1, a bank employee was charge-sheeted and removed from the serviceoftheappellantBankon6.11.1992.The Delhi Cantonment Branch received a letter during November, 1996 from Major Manjit Singh stating inter alia that the proceeds of the loan arranged in his name at the branch were utilised by the CSE. He further doubted the genuineness of some of the entries effected in his Saving Bank passbook. On 6.12.1986, the CSE deposited on his own an amount of Rs. 2,155.00/= at the branch for credit to Saving Bank Account No. 9581. The CSE vide his letter dated 14.101.1989 addressed to the Manager of the Delhi Cantonment branch stated that he made a credit entry of Rs. 500.00 in Saving Bank Account No. 9581 which pertains to a transfer entry of 10.5.1986 and on 10.7.1986 he made another credit entry for Rs. 500.00in Saving Bank Account which pertains to a clearing entry. Again, it was alleged against the respondent that he made the proceeds of the loan arranged in the name of Major Manjit Singh for his own benefit. It is also mentioned that he made four fictitious/false credit entries for sums aggregating to Rs. 2155.00 into his Saving Bank Account No. 9581 during the period between 10.5.1986 to D1.09.1986. Therefore, he was chargesheeted by the Bank for doing acts prejudicial ;o the interest of the Bank.

(3.) The Disciplinary Authority after considering the entire material on record observed that the CSE was given ample opportunity to defend his case in the departmental inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority held that the Inquiry Officer has rightly based his decision on the evidence produced before him. Thereafter, a punishment of dismissal from the services of the Bank was proposed to the respondent employee. The CSE also appeared and was given a personal hearing on the proposed punishment. After hearing his defence representative, the Disciplinary Authority observed that the misconduct committed by the respondent is of a very serious nature and the punishment proposed is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the CSE. The Disciplinary Authority passed the formal order dismissing the respondent from the service of the bank with immediate effect.