LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-284

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. K MOHAN

Decided On April 16, 2010
STATE BANK OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent, K.Mohan, while working as a clerk in the petitioner/State Bank of India at T.Nagar branch, Chennai, was alleged to have forged the signature of one account holder Smt.G.Poornima and made an unauthorised debit in her SB A/c. No.C8352 for Rs.5,000/-. Again, on 30.07.1994, the 1st respondent forged the signature of Smt.G.Poornima and made an unauthorised debit in her SB A/c. No.C 8352 for Rs.2,230/- and credited the same in his current account. But, subsequently, on 01.08.1994, the 1st respondent remitted this amount into her SB A/c. No.C 8352. On the third occasion, the 1st respondent on 13.08.1994, was alleged to have forged the signature of Smt.G.Poornima and made an unauthorised debit in her SB A/c. No.C 8352 for Rs.3,000/- and subsequently, on 18.08.1994, the 1st respondent remitted this amount into her account and thereby, temporarily misappropriated the said money and to cover up his fraudulent act, the 1st respondent destroyed the debit vouchers as well. On the 4th occasion on 25.08.94, 1st respondent again forged the signature of the said Smt.G.Poornima and made an unauthorised debit in her account for Rs.2,000/- and subsequently, on 02.09.1994, he credited this amount into her account. On 5th time, i.e. on 03.10.1994, the 1st respondent caused a debit of Rs.30,000/- in the SB A/c No.C8261 of one Mrs.M.Rajalakshmi by preparing a letter forging the signature of the account holder and received a Bankers cheque for Rs.30,000/- in the name of one M.Kumar and thereby, received payment against the Bankers cheque from Smt.Shanthi, Payment Cashier, stating that M.Kumar was his own friend and, thereby, received money from her and misappropriated the same and, to cover up his fraudulent act, he destroyed the entire bunch of vouchers relating to current Account - C & I of 03.10.1994.

(2.) The account holder Rajalakshmi, having found that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was debited from her account, made a complaint on 08.10.94 against the misappropriation of Rs.30,000/- from her account. After receipt of the complaint, the 1st respondent gave his letter on 10.10.94 admitting his guilt that he was constrained to commit the mistakes in view of his family problem and pleaded for excuse stating that the above said amounts were already credited. The 1st respondent was placed under suspension by an order dated 15.10.94. Thereafter, the above said forgery and misappropriation of bank money, the 1st respondent was issued with a show cause notice calling upon him to submit his explanation for the above said charges by letter dated 14.12.1994. A charge sheet dated 14.12.94 was issued against him by framing 5 charges, alleging acts of forging and destructing the bank's records and misappropriation of the bank's money. The 1st respondent submitted a detailed explanation denying all the allegations. The department having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the delinquent employee, ordered for enquiry. The enquiry officer, after giving reasonable opportunities, by complying the principles of natural justice, completed the enquiry by submitting his report, stating that 4 charges were not proved and 5th charge has been partly proved. But, the enquiry officer did not specify which part or portion of the 5th charge was proved. Therefore, the Assistant General Manager Region II has sent a letter on 08.12.1998 stating that so far as charges 1 to 4, he concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer, but, in respect of charge No.5, the Assistant General Manager Region II disagreed with the findings. Therefore, the petitioner has given one more opportunity to the 1st respondent calling upon him for personal hearing and, thereafter, not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the 1st respondent, imposed the punishment of discharge by treating the period of suspension as one of suspension for all purposes.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of imposing the punishment of discharge, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal, but the appellate authority after applying his mind, rejected the appeal, holding that the order passed by the Assistant General Manager Region II, who is the competent authority, was held to be valid and, therefore, the same could not be questioned by the petitioner.