ASHOK KUMAR SAXENA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was a clerk-cum-cashier in punjab National Bank. There were allegations of embezzlement of lacs of rupees against the petitioner. Accordingly, charge-sheet was given to the petitioner. Enquiry was held in which he did not participate. The Inquiry officer gave a report against the petitioner. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service without notice. The punishment was confirmed by senior Regional Manager/disciplinary authority through order dated August 30, 2000 which was confirmed in appeal through order dated December 7, 2000. The said orders have been challenged through this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER admits that inspite of several notices he did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. The only point raised in the writ petition and argued at the time of hearing was that for the charges levelled against the petitioner a First Information Report had also been lodged against the petitioner and in consequence thereof criminal case No. 7261/1999 was initiated against the petitioner which was pending when enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer hence by virtue of Rules 19. 3 and 19. 4 of bipartite settlement between banks and their workmen, disciplinary proceedings should not have been initiated or continued against the petitioner. It has been stated in the counter affidavit and argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the charges in the two proceedings i. e. criminal case and disciplinary proceedings were different. In the criminal case petitioner was acquitted. Copy of the judgment delivered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad on april 30, 2002 in criminal case No. 7261 of 1999 - State v. Ashok Kumar Saxena has been filed as annexure R. A.-2 to the rejoinder affidavit. Its typed copy has also separately been supplied.

(3.) CHARGE-SHEET given in disciplinary proceedings to the petitioner is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Charge-1 in the charge-sheet Annexure-3 is the same as the charges framed against the petitioner in the criminal case. Under charge-1 the allegation was that several account holders whose names are mentioned therein deposited certain amounts which were noted on their passbooks also by the petitioner. However, petitioner pocketed the said amounts, did not deposit the same in the Bank and did not enter the said amounts in the registers of the Bank. The names given in the judgment of the criminal case and in Annexure-3 under charge No. 1 are exactly same amounts are also same.