RAMESH CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case it appears to this Court that there are five charges against the petitioner. While the 5 petitioner was working at Padrauna Branch during the period from September 12, 1985 to June 22, 1991 he committed lapses and accordingly five charges were levelled which are as follows: 10

(2.) The inquiry officer found that the charge No. 1 is not proved. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned he said that it was proved to the extent that CSO has altered the entry of Rs. 800/- without verification etc. but is not found guilty of withdrawing Rs. 800/- fraudulently. So far as charge No. 3 is concerned the inquiry officer said that charge was proved to the extent that CSO has posted the voucher/Cheque in wrong account but mala fide intention has not been proved. So far as charge No. 4 is concerned he has said that CSO was not having power to pass conveyance bill, thus he was found guilty to pass his own conveyance bill without any power but the other part of the charge that he derived undue pecuniary benefit could not be proved. So far as charge No. 5 is concerned the inquiry officer has not found guilty for abusing his official position. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and in its order the disciplinary authority awarded the following punishment:

(3.) After perusing the material available on the record particularly the order of disciplinary authority, we are not very much pleased with the findings of the disciplinary authority with regard to disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer. No proper reasoning has been given for disagreement. On the other hand the punishment of reduction of two increments and censure entries have also been merged with the ultimate punishment of dismissal. Therefore, the order of dismissal has been passed despite the fact that the inquiry officer was very much specific in not awarding such punishment. In such circumstances the disciplinary authority should have been very much careful in recording proper reasonings. Accordingly, we do not find any proper reason for awarding such punishment, whatsoever in the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority.