VIJAY KUMAR Vs. BAREILLY KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Clerk -cum -Cashier in the respondent -Bareilly Kshetriya Gramin Bank. On 1 -5 -2003, a charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority levelling two charges against him which related to some incidents on 5 -7 -1999 and 7/9 -3 -2000. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge -sheet. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 22 -8 -2003, which was forwarded to the petitioner on 11 -9 -2003 for his comments, which were given by him on 26 -9 -2003. On 10 -11 -2003 the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner to show -cause as to why, on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Report, he should not be dismissed from the services of the Bank. A detailed reply was filed by the petitioner on 25 -11 -2003. By the impugned order dated 12 -1 -2004, the disciplinary authority, accepting the report and the findings of the enquiry officer and holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, passed an order dismissing him from service. As provided under the Service Regulations of the Bank, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Directors on 2 -2 -2004, which has also been dismissed on 27 -5 -2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 12 -1 -2004 and 27 -5 -2004, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri Anjani Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri R.B. Sahai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent -Bank and have perused the record.

(3.) WITH regard to the first charge, which relates to alleged embezzlement of Rs. 12,445/ -of the bank on 5 -7 -1999, it has been submitted that for the same charge of embezzlement, one Rajendra Pratap Singh, the then Branch Manager of the bank was also charge -sheeted on 27 -11 -2001, alongwith several other charges against him for having committed financial irregularities. Annexure -9 to the writ petition is the charge -sheet dated 27 -12 -2001 submitted in the case of Rajendra Pratap Singh. The details of the embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 72,000/ -has been given in the enclosure annexed with the said charge -sheet. At Serial No. 6, mention of embezzlement of Rs. 12,445/ -in respect of the account of the loanee Ram Pal son of Godhan Lal has been made. It is the categorical case of the petitioner (which has not been denied by the respondents) that the said Rajendra Pratap Singh admitted his guilt of embezzlement of the said amount of Rs. 12,445/ -relating to account of one Ram Pal, besides having committed the other financial irregularities also. After admitting his guilt, the said Rajendra Pratap Singh deposited the amount alleged to have been embezzled by him. After enquiry, he had been found guilty of the charges and has already been dismissed from the services of the bank in the year 2002 itself. As such it has been submitted that the petitioner could not be charged for embezzlement of the same amount for which the said Rajendra Pratap Singh had been charged of and had been found guilty. It has been categorically stated that neither the enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority and not even the appellate authority before whom the said explanation had been given, (which are all on record) have considered the same while submitting the report or while imposing punishment or while deciding the appeal of the petitioner. On being asked, Sri Sahai, learned Counsel for the respondent could not point out from the enquiry report or the orders of the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as to where such explanation given by the petitioner had been considered.