REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

A Thangavelu Appellant

V/S

PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LTD VERSUS GUJARAT STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS V. MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE [REFERRED TO]
K.RAMALINGAM VERSUS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PERABALUR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA V. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED VS. THEIR WORKMEN: INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NEW DELHI VS. BHOPAL SINGH PANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
KERALA SOLVENT EXTRACTIONS LIMITED VS. A UNNIKRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
B C CHATURVEDI UNION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL MANAGER VS. NIKUNJA BIHARI PATNAIK [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. G GANAYUTHAM [REFERRED TO]
UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. VISHWA MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
SHAMA PRASHANT RAJE VS. GANPATRAO [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH NATH GUPTA VS. ENQUIRY OFFICER R K RAI ALLAHABAD BANK [REFERRED TO]
DAMOH PANNA SUGAR RURAL REGIONAL BANK VS. MUNNA LAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
HOMBE GOWDA EDN TRUST VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MOHAMMED AYUB NAZ [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SHEO SHANKER LAL SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
NORTH EASTERN KARNATAKA R T CORPN VS. ASHAPPA [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. GEORGE PHILIP [REFERRED TO]
MAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN KALIA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN EMPLOYED IN ENGINE VALVES LIMITED VS. ENGINE VALVES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
PALANIAPPAN R M VS. TRANSPORT COMMISIONER [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBIR SINGH VS. GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS [REFERRED TO]
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. VS. GOPAL SHUKLA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS. VS. ABRAR ALI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief:

(2.) The petitioner was working in the second respondent bank as Assistant (Accounts & Cash). According to the petitioner, he rendered unblemished service through out his career. While he was working as Assistant in Ganesapuram Branch of 2nd respondent bank, he was placed under suspension by order dated 23.10.200 Thereafter, a charge memorandum was issued on 18.11.2002, framing two articles of charges. In response to the charge memorandum, an explanation was given by the petitioner dated 10.12002, denying the charges. However, not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered and the petitioner participated in the enquiry. The enquiry report was submitted holding the charges proved against petitioner and on the basis of the said report, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 10.11.2003 proposing the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits. Thereafter, final order of punishment removing the petitioner from service was passed, against which, an appeal was preferred on 9.2004, which came to be rejected by the proceedings dated 16.6.2004 by the appellate authority.

(3.) The first charge framed against the petitioner was relating to change of credit voucher on 9.10.2002 pertaining to one customer, Mr.Natarajan, bearing A/c.No.9/1605, which, according to the petitioner, by mistake amount was credited into the account of one Mr.Balasubramanian, A/c.No.1/20 and thereby, the petitioner defrauded the amount. The second charge was that the petitioner was in the habit of borrowing money from the customers of the Branch. According to the explanation of the petitioner, the entry was made mistakenly without any intention to defraud the amount and that he had not borrowed the money from the customers of the bank.

Click here to view full judgment.

A THANGAVELU Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address