CHINTA LAL Vs. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the petition are that on 20th December, 1976, the petitioner was appointed as Messenger in the State Bank of India and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Cashier/Clerk w.e.f. 01.03.1984. On 01.07.1991, when the petitioner was posted as Cashier at Dewal Branch (in district Chamoli), one Shri Bishwambhar Datt, a account holder of the Bank, deposited a sum of Rs. 1,500/- in his saving bank account and Rs. 80/- in his recurring deposit account. On 14.09.1991 when the said account holder came to the branch of the Bank and enquired about his bank entries, he found that the amount of Rs. 1,500/- was not credited on 01.07.1991, he then filed complaint with the Bank. In the meantime, on 20.09.1991, the aforesaid account holder Shri Bishwambhar Datt again wrote a letter that he had received back the amount of Rs. 1,500/-, which he had deposited in his bank account, therefore he is taking back his complaint because he has no more grievance in the matter. In the meantime, on 16.09.1991, the Branch Manager of the Dewal Branch served Office Memorandum on the petitioner asking his explanation in the matter as under what circumstances the amount of Rs. 1,500/- deposited by Shri Bishwambhar Datt was not credited in the bank account. The petitioner replied to the said Office Memorandum on 20.09.1991. Thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 25.01.1992. The petitioner responded to the said show cause notice. After conducting departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 27.08.1984, whereby the petitioner was discharged from the Bank service. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was also rejected on 7th February, 1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed writ petition no. 136 of 2002 and Division Bench of this Court, after taking consensus of the learned counsel for the parties directed that the petitioner be reinstated in the employment with arrears of half back wages for the period he was out of employment. Lateron, the respondent-Bank filed an application before this Court with the assertion that no consent was given by their counsel, therefore an order was passed by the Division Bench again on 13.05.2003 whereby the words after taking consensus of the learned counsel for the parties' were scored out. The respondentBank filed Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which was granted and appeal was registered as Appeal no. 6480-81 of 2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set-aside the judgment and order dated 05.12.2002 and remitted the matter to the High Court for deciding it afresh. The writ petition no. 136 (S/S) 2002 was reheard by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, before whom the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that he does not want to press the procedural part of the enquiry, but he pressed the petition only on the ground that punishment of discharge from service is harsh and excessive in nature. The Hon'ble Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, made an observation that it is always open to the petitioner to make a representation to the punishing authority requesting him to consider the harsh nature of the punishment and permitted the petitioner to make representation to the appointing authority/punishing authority. Such authority was directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Single Judge also observed that non-deposit of Rs. 1,500/- by the petitioner till the complaint was received, clearly shows the mens rea of the petitioner which can be connected with the embezzlement amounting to a serious misconduct. The judgment and order of Hon'ble Single Judge was challenged by the petitioner in Special Appeal no. 181 of 2008. During the pendency of Special Appeal, the respondent authority also passed an order on the representation of the petitioner on 21 st July, 2008 by which representation of the petitioner was rejected and the order passed by the disciplinary authority was maintained. Later on, Special Appeal No. 181 of 2008 was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the order rejecting his representation. Thereafter, present writ petition was filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Bhatt submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is highly excessive keeping in view that 4 complainant himself withdrew his complaint before initiation of the departmental proceedings. He contended that it was a mistake on the part of the petitioner as he forgot to make entry in the ledger book and kept the money separately inside a diary. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had any intention of embezzlement of such a meager amount. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no use, in view of the fact that in earlier round of litigation, the petitioner himself deposed before the Court that he does not intend to press the procedural portion of the impugned punishment order, therefore in the present writ petition, the finding given thereof by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner could not, at all, be challenged. The petitioner was Cashier in the Bank. The customers have faith in the banking system; they deposit their savings in the Bank and after depositing money a state of free from care prevail with the hope that the sum deposited by them is in safe hands. Work of a Cashier is full of responsibilities. The said sum was deposited by Shri Bishwambhar Datt on 1 st July, 1991. Non-deposit of said amount came into knowledge only after complaint was received in the Bank, which envisaged the misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Finding of Hon'ble the Single Judge in his order dated 12.12.2007 cannot be overlooked, in which the Hon'ble Single Judge has observed that no doubt, non-deposit of Rs. 1,500/- by the petitioner till the complaint was received, clearly shows the mens rea of the petitioner which can be connected with the embezzlement amounting to a serious misconduct. This finding of Hon'ble the Single Judge was not set-aside by the Division Bench, as the Special Appeal preferred by the petitioner was withdrawn. This Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 27.08.1984 passed by the disciplinary authority. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.