RAMESH RAGHUNATH CHAVAN Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was in the employment of Respondent No. 1. Petitioner was charge-sheeted by charge-sheet dated 13th February, 1997. The charge against the petitioner was that he had misused the credit card issued to him by application dated 17th July, 1995. By misusing the card, he had withdrawn various amounts from time to time without keeping in mind the expenditure limit and further without sufficient balance went on making purchases. Sufficient arrangements had not been made to arrange adequate amount in the said account within 15 days as per the rules of Savings Account No. 645 and as such the excess amounts were debited to the petitioner's account. It was also set out that the petitioner had made purchases in excess of limits. When it was noticed that the purchases done were in excess than the limit, the Manager had instructed him to return the said card but the petitioner continuously used the said card. As such the petitioner's credit card was noted on hot list by bulletin No. 36 dated 30th May, 1996 and by sending notice dated 25th May, 1996. He was thus not granted permission for utilising credit card facility. Inspite of that the petitioner withdrew after that altogether a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on dates as set out in the charge-sheet. It was the case of the Bank that the facility was completely misused and the petitioner had misused bank's amount of more than Rs. 1,00,000/ -. It was also set out, that at the time of obtaining credit card petitioner had submitted certificate issued by Solapur Municipal Corporation mentioning therein that the petitioner's wife was in the service of solapur Municipal Corporation and considering her income as well as the petitioner's income, the petitioner had applied for issuance of credit card. The petitioner therefore, wrongly represented and obtained credit card facility. It is then set out that in terms of Clause 19-5 (J) of first Bi-partite agreement dated 19th May, 1996 the petitioner had committed misconduct which was considered as prejudicial to the interest of that Bank and amounted to gross misconduct. Petitioner was called upon to give his say.

(2.) Petitioner by his letter dated 1st April, 1997 replied to the charge-sheet. With reference to the contention that he had submitted certificate of Solapur Municipal Corporation of Sou. Yellamma Gaikwad, his wife, he denied having submitted under such certificate and pointed out that his wife is Yallubai Ramesh Chavan and that certificate attached was belonging to third person. It is then set out that he was working with Bank since 1984 and for a year was working without any payment. It is then set out that the Petitioner's father was ailing for a long time and that he was ready to pay credit card balances and prayed for granting installments for paying the amount.

(3.) An enquiry there after was held. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings to the Disciplinary Authority by his representation dated 20th january, 1998. In so far as the charge of getting sanctioned India Card by stating his income of his spouse as Rs. 20,000/-and submitting a bogus/fake certificate issued by Solapur Municipal Corporation, the enquiry Officer held the charge as partly true. It was held that it was proved to the extent that he had set out in the application for India card the income of his wife was Rs. 20,000/- for which he did not produce any salary certificate and thus gave a false statement. In so far as production of false certificate held not proved. In so far as the charge of misuse of card in the matter of exceeding spending limit, held that it was proved. In so far as charge of not paying amount debited in clearing account within 15 days that amount was not paid in time and therefore, proved. In respect of the charge withdrawing the amount from various branches when hot listed, held the charge of cash withdrawal to be proved, but held that the charge of the delinquent being made aware of hot listing not proved.