N.C. CHATURVEDI Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for setting aside of the orders passed by the Departmental Authorities of the respondent no.1/employer/Bank of India whereby the petitioner has been imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service.

(2.) The charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner allowed an account of one Smt. Kiran Devi to be opened in the Connaught Circus branch where he was posted as a Clerk though he was not in-charge of opening of accounts. Petitioner is thereafter charged in taking the necessary documents for release of the amount of Rs.4 lacs lying in the account of the said Smt. Kiran Devi at the Karol Bagh branch of the respondent No.1-bank. Although to the knowledge of the petitioner there was a doubt about the identity of Smt. Kiran Devi and the Karol Bagh Branch of the respondent No.1-bank after having opened the account of Smt. Kiran Devi and crediting an amount of Rs.4 lacs by clearing of the cheque had put the said substantial amount into Sundry Deposit account, "unknown deposits". Petitioner is alleged to have personally got a pay order issued from the Karol Bagh Branch of Rs.4 lacs in the name of Smt. Kiran Devi which was credited to the saving bank account No.17629 of Smt. Kiran Devi in Connaught Circus Branch and thereafter the amounts were withdrawn in cash by Smt. Kiran Devi. In order to fully understand the charge against the petitioner, the facts as stated against the petitioner in the enquiry report are reproduced as under:-

(3.) In the enquiry proceedings, detailed oral and documentary evidence was led by both the parties. The management examined six witnesses and filed 44 documents whereas the petitioner/charged official examined three witnesses besides himself and filed 36 documents. The Enquiry Officer thereafter has drawn out a detailed report running into 38 pages (single spacing) holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The detailed report discusses the various contentions as raised by the petitioner and gives findings and conclusions as to how the defence/stand of the petitioner is misconceived and unacceptable.