ANTONY GNANAMUTHU Vs. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the case of a Bank employee involved in a case of temporary misappropriation to tide over the financial difficulties caused on account of the illness of his wife and detention of son under Goondas Act, which ultimately resulted in his dismissal from service, notwithstanding the 30 years of unblemished service. The facts in nut shell:

(2.) The appellant was employed as an accountant In the Karaikudl Branch of Union Bank of India. While so, a charge sheet was issued to him on 21.11.2002. The said charge sheet reads thus:

(3.) According to the Bank, on 13.8.2002, the appellant sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-to Thiru. A. Mohammed Mustafa, against the NRE deposit which stood in the name of his brother Thiru. Mohammed Ibrahim. The loan' was disbursed in two installments. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by way of demand draft in the name of Ms. Flora Nesamani of Pudukottai. Another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid on 24.8.2002 by way of another demand draft taken in the name of A. John Bosco and payable at Madurai. Though the Branch Manager was very much available in the branch, he was not informed about the transaction. Subsequently, on 4.9.2004, the Branch Manager received a phone call from Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim requesting him to consolidate his deposit receipts into one. He made further Inquiry with respect to the prevailing rate of interest. This made the Branch Manager to verify the fixed deposit receipts in the name of Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim. When it was found that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was taken as loan against the fixed deposit, the said information was passed on to Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim. However, Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim informed the Manager that he has not taken any loan. Thereafter, the Branch Manager contacted Mr. Mohammed Mustafa, elder brother of Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim with regard to the loan taken by him. The said Mr. Mohammed Mustafa In-turn informed the manager that he has not come to the Bank on 13.8.2002. However, he admitted his signature in the application for loan. Immediately on 5.9.2002, the Branch Manager directed the appellant to deposit the amount. Accordingly, the appellant deposited the amount. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were taken against him.