VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner who was working as a branch in-charge of the Sherpur Khadar rural branch of the Punjab and Sind Bank (the Bank?) challenges an order dated 18 th September, 1995 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (DA?) awarding the Petitioner the punishment of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" under Clause 4 (h) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of the Bank.

(2.) The Petitioner joined the Respondent Bank as a clerk on 30 th March 1974. He was promoted as officer on 7 th February 1977. In January 1988 he was posted as a branch in charge of the Sherpur Khadar rural branch of the Bank in the interiors of Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioner states that the said branch serviced thirty-three villages and was manned only by four persons, viz., the branch in-charge, the cashier, the peon and the guard. On 11 th January 1991, the cashier of the branch left early on the pretext of some work and did not return to the branch. The Petitioner states that he was anxious to keep the branch running and having no other option recovered the cashier's keys from his drawer and closed the Bank?s safe in the presence of the peon and the guard. When on 12 th January 1991 also the cashier did not turn up for duty, the Petitioner sent an intimation to the Regional Office. Thereafter on discovering certain anomalies in the passbooks of the customers and the Bank?s ledger, the Petitioner sent an intimation to the Regional Office on 18 th January 1991 with respect to the embezzlement by the cashier. This was followed by a telegram dated 21 st January 1991. The Petitioner also lodged an FIR against the cashier in consultation with the Regional Office.

(3.) The Petitioner states that although he had no role to play in the alleged fraud by the cashier, he was served with an order of suspension on 20 th February 1991 and subsequently a charge sheet dated 19 th June 1991. There were four articles of charge. The first was that the Petitioner had handled both sets of keys illegally and unauthorisedly from 11 th to 21 st January 1991 as the cashier was absent from the Bank branch on those dates. The Petitioner did not inform the competent authority that he was handling both sets of keys and this was in violation of the head office (H.O.) instructions. The second article of charge was that the Petitioner had issued a cash receipt of Rs. 1000 to one Shri Karam Singh on 20 th November 1990 being the cash deposited by the party to be credited in his account. The cash was not deposited in the account but pocketed. The third article of charge was that the Petitioner out of dishonest motives and in dereliction of his duties failed to check why the cashier was making payments of more than Rs. 5000 on withdrawal forms instead of issuing loose cheques or using the cheques issued to the depositors. The fourth article of charge was that the Petitioner did not keep proper control on the working of the branch. Some of the withdrawal forms filled up by the cashier had been verified by the Petitioner therefore the Petitioner had aided and abetted the fraudulent act committed by the cashier and as a consequence a loss of about Rs. 20 lacs was perpetrated on the Bank. A sample of fourteen cases amounting to Rs. 0.73 lakhs where fraudulent acts were committed by the cashier in connivance with the Petitioner was enclosed with the charge sheet. According to the Petitioner, the Bank needed a scapegoat and therefore foisted a false enquiry on the Petitioner.