RAJENDRA KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner who was working in Respondent No. 2, Central Bank of India (hereinafter ,,the Bank), as Sub-Accountant challenges an administrative order dated 25th May 1993 issued by the Regional Manager of the Bank informing him that the Disciplinary Authority (,,DA) has awarded him the consolidated punishment "removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment" in terms of Regulation 4(g) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (DandA) Regulations, 1976 (,,Regulations). THE Petitioner also challenges an order dated 24th November 1993 passed by the Appellate Authority (,,AA) rejecting his appeal. THE Petitioner prays for the setting aside of the above orders and for a direction to the Bank to reinstate him in service with full back wages and continuity in service.

(2.) THE Petitioner joined the services of the Bank in 1962 and rose to the position of Chief Cashier/Sub-Accountant in 1979. While working as a Chief Cashier/Sub- Accountant in the Chawri Bazar Branch of the Bank on 28th January 1986 he alleged to have deliberately detained a DD cash receipt voucher for Rs. 1,55,250/-. He is stated to have initially countersigned the voucher and after the cash for making the DD was received in full by the receipt cashier, he cancelled the voucher and retained it with him. THE Branch Manager had to take the voucher and himself countersign it and release it for preparation of the DD. Later in the evening, while closing the cash the Petitioner made a false hue and cry that there was a shortage of Rs. 90,000/- in the Cash Department. This was found to be untrue when the recounting of the cash took place. After this incident, the Petitioner was transferred to the Patparganj Branch of the Bank. THE Petitioner filed Suit No. 107 of 1986 seeking a permanent injunction against the said transfer. THE said suit came to be ultimately dismissed by the learned Sub- Judge, Delhi on 1st March 1986. Inter alia, it was held that the transfer order had been properly served on the Petitioner but it was he who refused to accept it. Consequently, the suit was rendered infructuous. Further, it was held that the Petitioner had no right to be posted at the Chawri Bazar Branch permanently and that the relief of injunction was barred by Section 41 (e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

(3.) THE Petitioner was issued a memorandum dated 8th September 1986 and another one on 4th October 1986 in relation to the above incident of 28th January 1986. THE Petitioner refuted the charges in his statement of defence dated 17th October 1986. In relation to the said charge, on 25th June 1992, at the conclusion of the enquiry, the DA awarded the Petitioner a consolidated punishment of "reduction of pay scale by one stage in the time scale applicable" in terms of Regulation 4(e) of the Regulations.