SURYANKANT L PATEL Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was directed against the order dated 30.03.1999 passed by respondent No.1 disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service pursuant to a departmental inquiry held against him. The petitioner challenged also the order dated 24.06.1999 of the appellate authority passed in the departmental appeal, and further prayed for relief of reinstatement with full back wages.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case could be condensed as under.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner submitted that the factum of illness of the petitioner and his son was not disputed, nor was there any dispute about their having taken treatment from Dr. Trivedi. The bills were issued by that Doctor himself, therefore, according to the learned advocate, the reimbursement was properly claimed. It was submitted that it could not be said that there was any intention on part of the delinquent to derive undue benefit. It was further submitted that when the Doctor himself had admitted his mistake for issuing the bills, no guilt or misconduct could be ascribed to the petitioner. She submitted that except the bills themselves, there was no other evidence to sustain the charge against the petitioner and when those bills were in respect of the medical treatment actually taken, the punishment was unjustified. Learned advocate lastly contended that in any case, the penalty was very harsh and deserved to be set aside by this Court.