VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARDWAJ Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.1.1997 passed by the Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank by which the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the Bank with immediate effect and the order dated 21.6.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid dismissal order.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Clerk in the Bank. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner mentioning therein that he was instrumental in getting a Saving Bank Account No. 40930 opened at Meerut Main Branch of the Bank in the name of Rajiv Bhardwaj with an initial deposit of Rs. 10/- by signing as Rajiv Bhardwaj. He then got prepared a Demand Draft for S. 3.85 lacs making use of a Demand Draft leaf bearing No. 162052 of TL series, pilfered by him from the Meerut Main Branch. The said Draft was shown to have been issued by Baraut Branch in favour of Rajiv Bhardwaj. It was then presented at Meerut Main Branch for crediting the proceeds to SB Account No. 40930 in the name of Rajiv Bhardwaj on 9.10.1991. Subsequently he destroyed the paid Demand Draft for Rs. 3.85 lacs and tore off the account opening form of SB Account No. 40930 so that the portion showing the name of the introducer and his account number was removed. The chequebook was, however, not delivered by the Branch when it came to the knowledge that the relevant SB Account opening form had been torn. Consequently the amount could not be withdrawn by the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet and participated in the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. A notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner to show-cause why the proposed punishment of dismissal from service from the Bank should not be imposed upon him and a copy of the Enquiry Report was also enclosed. The Disciplinary Authority gave a personal hearing to the petitioner also and then passed the dismissal order clearly mentioning that the petitioner had been given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and that the Enquiry Officer after properly analysing the evidence had held the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner then filed an Appeal against the aforesaid order, which was also dismissed. The Appellate Authority has also recorded a finding that the Enquiry Officer gave proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case and has also elaborately discussed the evidence and given cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusions. The Appellate Authority has also recorded a finding that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him.