RANVEER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner while serving as Head Cashier in Punjab National Bank, Branch office Usawan, Budaun, a complaint was received by the bank authorities from one Pawan Misra and Mrs. Meera Jaiswal that the amount deposited with the bank has not been credited in their account. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 83,940/-. The charges were replied by the petitioner stating therein that no such amount was deposited by the said complainants nor any receipt was issued by him in this behalf. The Enquiry Officer did not find explanation of the petitioner satisfactory and recommended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 3.4.2006 which too was replied by the petitioner. Consequently, an order of dismissal was passed by the appointing authority against the petitioner. An appeal was preferred against the dismissal order which was also dismissed on 13.9.2006. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The case set out by the petitioner is that no amount was deposited by the complainant nor any receipt was issued in this behalf. He also laid stress on the fact that even the amount which is said to have been deposited by Pawan Misra his signatures have not been proved during the course of enquiry. Another complaint was filed by the husband of Smt. Meera Jaiswal. She denied depositing of the amount in the bank on 24.11.2004 as is stated in the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is stated that the signatures of the petitioner were not proved in accordance with law as per provisions of section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further contended that one slip dated 13.2.2005 is said to have been issued on Sunday, which is a holiday and another dated 15.2.2005 is receipt issued on FDR slip. The mode and manner in which the signatures of the petitioner have been proved are not in accordance with law and as such, there is no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to hold him guilty. The order of dismissal per se was based on the evidence which is perverse.

(3.) On the other hand, the stand of the respondent is that the signatures of the petitioner on deposit receipt have been identified by the manager who was acquainted with the said signatures. It is further contended that the amount deposited by the customer/complainant has not been entered into the cash book nor the said amount has been credited in the account of the customer. Once the signatures of the petitioners were identified by the persons who were acquainted with the said signatures, nothing more was required to be proved by the respondent bank. The order of dismissal was passed in accordance with law.