SAGAR SADASHIV KASTURE Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank dated 28-08-1993, by which the petitioner is subjected to penalty of removal from the services. However, the said order is not to be treated as disqualification for future employment. The order of the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed by the Appellate Authority of the respondent Bank by an order dated 01 -12-1993.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the respondent Bank on 05-03-1973 and was working at the relevant time, at Vadgaon Anand Branch of the Bank upto 21-09-1977. The petitioner was subsequently promoted as an Officer (Grade 1) in February, 1981. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in December, 1991. It was alleged that the petitioner while working as Clerk at the said Branch during the period between 05-03-1973 to 21-09-1981, committed misconduct by misusing his position as an employee of the Bank by deriving pecuniary benefits for himself through the loan of Rs.6,500/- which was sanctioned and disbursed on 31 -07-1976 in the name of one Manaji Baban Kokane. It is the case of the respondent No. 1. that one Mr. Kokane, resident of Ale, Tal.-Junnar, Dist.-Pune, had submitted an application on 03-07-1976 for availing a loan of Rs.7,000/ -. A loan of Rs.6,500/- was accordingly sanctioned to him and disbursed on 31 -07-1976 and the pecuniary benefit of the same was enjoyed by the petitioner, as is evident from the credits made in the said loan account. Accordingly, it is alleged that the petitioner misused his position as an employee of the respondent-Bank by deriving pecuniary benefit out of the said loan transaction.

(3.) The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer for conduct of the inquiry against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer recorded the evidence of the petitioner and the other witnesses and submitted his findings, which are at Page 25 (Annexure B) of the paper book. The Inquiry Officer observed that after going through the proceedings of the departmental inquiry and considering the documentary evidence on record, he came to the conclusion that the petitionhad taken Rs.6,000/- from Mr. Kokane, the borrower. After considering the documentary and oral evidence on record, the Inquiry Officer came to the following conclusions :