MOHD ATIQUE ANSARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned herein is the order dated 25.4.2003 by which the Petitioner was reverted from the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Branch Manager (Category II) to the post of Clerk/Cashier Category III followed by deduction of Rs. 4000.00 per month from his salary.

(2.) The facts forming background to the present petition are that the Petitioners alongwith others misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,09000.00 The defalcation intruded upon the notice of the Bank as a result of complaint made by one Adhyaksh Lal Jeevan. A fact-finding preliminary enquiry was set afoot by the Bank appointing one Sri J.S. Chauhan Senior Manager (Vikas) as the enquiry officer by means of the order dated 6.7.2001 requiring him to scrutinise the record and submit his report by 9.8.2001. In the report submitted by Sri J.S. Chauhan, the Petitioner was imputed with being privy to embezzlement to the tune of Rs. 2,09,000.00 alongwith others and in relation to embezzlement to the extent of Rs. 6000.00, the report pointed accusing finger at the Petitioner stating that he embezzled the said amount individually to the exclusion of others. It transpires from the record that the modus operandi adopted by the Petitioner and others in defalcation of the amount was by scoring and altering the amount in the cheques submitted to the Bank (details of date and amount enumerated in the enquiry report). As a sequel to this report, the Petitioner was suspended from service in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry by means of the order-dated 16.8.2001. One Sri P.S. Valyan Section officer was appointed as enquiry officer. As many as 14 charges were listed against the Petitioner in the charge-sheet all revolving round financial irregularities. The enquiry was taken to finality vide enquiry report dated 5.6.2002 and all the charges were brought home to the Petitioner. The said report was then placed before the Managing Committee for consideration on 5.6.2002. The Managing Committee again met on 16.11.2002 in which the matter again received consideration and after hearing the Petitioner, it was consensually decided to enjoin the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 47500.00 in lump sum and the remaining amount be recovered in 12 equal instalments from the salary of the Petitioner followed by decision that the Petitioner be reverted consequence of the aforesaid decision, a show cause dated 2.12.02 notice was served to the Petitioner to which he submitted his reply on 20.12.2002 with accompanying receipt in token of deposit of Rs. 47500.00. In his reply, the Petitioner sought indulgence that the remaining amount of Rs. 52000.00 be adjusted against the bonus amount, arrears of suspension allowance and other claims due to him and further that he may be reinstated in the service. In the self-same representation, the Petitioner ventilated his grievance that one Har Sumran Lal, the then Branch Manager had been similarly insinuated of committing embezzlement but he was not proceeded against till his death and was rather let off without any disciplinary enquiry and the embezzled amount which he was ascribed to have embezzled, was adjusted against the claims due to him and he was shown undue indulgence as compared to the Petitioner, by taking one of his sons in the service of Bank. It is in this background that the Petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh, learned Counsel representing the Bank authorities. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner began his submission stating that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. He further canvassed that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer was not warranted by the facts and evidence on from the post of Senior Asstt./Junior Branch Manager to the post of clerk/Cashier. It further transpires from the record that the Petitioner acquiesced to the decision on condition that he may be reinstated in the service of the Bank. As a record and as such there is element of perversity permeating the entire finding. He further canvassed that the disciplinary authority erred in toeing the decision taken by the Managing Committee and as such the order of the disciplinary authority suffers from the vice of non-application of mind.