S. XAVIER MONI Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders issued by the second respondent/ Zonal Manager in Ref.Zo.IR: 393 dated 22.11.2012 and his consequential proceedings dated 30.01.2013 and 02.04.2013 and for a direction to the second respondent to release forthwith all the service benefits which the petitioner is legally entitled to.

(2.) Gist of the case of the petitioner is as follows:-

(3.) Per contra, it is the case of the respondents that the Writ Petitioner was posted as an Officer in the Foreign Exchange Department at Madras Main Branch on 01.04.1979. The Writ Petitioner herein and Foreign Exchange Dealer cum Officer-in-charge by name M.R.Natarajan had worked in the aforesaid department. During the tenure of service of the Writ Petitioner herein, the Writ Petitioner had committed serious acts/misconducts/irregularities. The Writ Petitioner had falsified the books of the bank to show a near-square position resulting in a serious loss to the bank and oversold position of US Dollars was concealed by the Writ Petitioner by entering fictitious contracts, thereby the books were falsified to show near-square position deliberately by manipulating the bank records. The Writ Petitioner had taken into position the fictitious sale contract with a view to conceal the overbought position deliberately, thereby falsified the books of the bank and caused the bank to meet the grave risk. The Writ Petitioner had allowed such fictitious contracts to run overdue till particulars period when it was reversed in the sale contract ledger. Some of the contracts alleged to have been entered with the bank were not actually concluded through such banks. Having deliberately did not take into position the forward sale contract of US Dollars for deliver in the particular period thereby caused the position to be oversold and taking the contract as afresh sale on the particular date at the old rate of the previous dates instead of market rate for the particular period thereby caused a heavy loss to the bank. More particularly various records of the respondent bank had been manipulated by the Writ Petitioner, thereby he caused the aforesaid loss and specifically spoiled the reputation of the respondent bank among the banking fraternity. In the instant case, although there were material evidences available to prove the prosecution case, it was not properly established by the prosecution side and hence, the Writ Petitioner was acquitted and the benefit of doubt given in favour of him.