LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-534

SUNDER SINGH M Vs. CANARA BANK

Decided On August 27, 2009
SUNDAR SINGH M. Appellant
V/S
CANARA BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent dated July 2, 1998 confirming the order of the second respondent dated October 14, 1996, which is in confirmation of the order passed by the third respondent dated April 6, 1995 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full bakwages, increment, promotions and other benefits from the date of dismissal from the service.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) The third respondent filed counter affidavit by stating that the petitioner joined in the services of the Bank on August 30, 1982 as Agricultural Extension Officer and while working at Kodaikkanal branch and at Keeranur branch, he received money from the borrowers for the closure of liability in their Farmers Green Card Scheme Loan accounts. The petitioner after receipt of the money from the borrowers did not remit the amount into their loan account and misappropriated the same. The petitioner also obtained fresh loan papers for the renewal of the Farmers Green Card Scheme Loan from the borrowers and submitted the renewal proposal to the sanctioning authority by misrepresenting that the earlier loans were closed, though the non-closure of the loan amount was within his knowledge. When the Kodaikkanal branch officials sent official notices to the borrowers the fact of non-closure of the loan amount came to light and when the borrowers approached the petitioner after knowing about the non-remittance of the amount, the petitioner paid and closed the loan accounts. Thus, the petitioner temporarily misappropriated the amount entrusted to him by the borrowers and derived pecuniary benefits. Departmental proceedings were initiated for the said misconduct by conducting enquiry and it was found that the petitioner was guilty of all the charges and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The appeal and review petitions filed were also rejected by the second and third respondents respectively. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was earlier charge sheeted for certain misconduct and was imposed with the punishment of reduction to lower time scale of pay by one stage on August 2, 1997 and the same was modified as 'Censure' on appeal. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and as per the service regulation there is no legal requirement to give detailed reasons. All the facts including the remarks submitted by the petitioner were taken note of by the third respondent before passing the order of dismissal. The appellate authority and reviewing authority found no ground to revise/review the decision. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceeding in compliance of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.