G RAVI Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner after his amended prayer, dated 16.11.2009 (ordered in M.P.No.1 of 2009), is challenging the order, dated 13.1.2009 passed by the first respondent confirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner as ordered by the second respondent, dated 10.8.2007 from the service of the Virinjipuram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank. After setting aside the same, he seeks for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

(2.) By the impugned order, dated 10.8.2007, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The charge against the petitioner was that while he was working as an Assistant Secretary, was tried for a criminal offence along with two other employees in Crime No.3 of 2003. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vellore by a judgment dated 8.4.2004 convicted the petitioner for one year imprisonment together with fine of Rs.7500/-. The petitioner who was arraigned as an accused No.3, was found guilty of offences under Sections 409, 418 read with Section 120B and 477A IPC on seven counts. The petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court, Vellore. But the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction. The petitioner preferred a criminal revision case in Crl. Revision No.385 of 2005 along with two other employees and was released on bail. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 5.9.2005. Subsequently, a charge memo, dated 21.11.2005 was given to the petitioner. The petitioner gave his explanation on 31.11.2005. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The Enquiry officer gave a report, dated 15.11.2006. On the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner's explanation was directed to be submitted by a memo, dated 18.11.2006. The petitioner gave his explanation, dated 27.11.2006. Subsequently, by a resolution, dated 10.8.2007, the petitioner was directed to be dismissed. Accordingly, he was dismissed.

(3.) The charges levelled against the petitioner were very serious. They were based upon the evidence produced before the enquiry. Though the petitioner submitted that while granting 7 jewel loans, the petitioner had collected enough details and it is only because of wrong certificate given by the jewel appraiser, loans were advanced and that the jewel appraiser has owned up the entire responsibility and that through his brother's son, the entire loan amounts were collected and there was no loss to the bank. Therefore, in future, he will behave in such a way that there will not be any disrepute to the bank. But, however, the second respondent did not agree to the submission made by the petitioner and held that only because of the grant of jewel loans to persons who are strangers who have pledged duplicate jewels, it created disrepute to the bank. Therefore, the petitioner having failed to know the bonafide of such persons, was responsible for the same. While dismissing the petitioner, the fact that his conviction by the criminal court and subsequently confirmed by the Sessions Court was also taken into account. At the time when the order came to be passed, the judgment of this court in the criminal revision was not pronounced. However, on 14.7.2008, this court allowed the Crl.R.C. filed by the petitioner and acquitted him of all the charges. The conviction and sentence imposed on him were set aside.