PRAFULLA S SHETTY Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mrs. Prafulla S. Shetty was served with a chargesheet dated 4. 5. 1992 under Regulation 6 of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981, for fraudulently crediting a total amount of Rs. 31,229/- to the Savings Bank Account No. 5479, standing in the name of her brother Dr. Naveen D. Shetty and withdrawal of the same subsequently by the petitioner and thereby committing fraud and misappropriation of the Bank's money by misusing her official position in the Bank. At the relevant time in the year 1989 the petitioner was working as an Officer at Thane branch of Vijay Bank (A Government of India Undertaking). The enquiry in question pertains to only one of the fraudulent acts, whereas in regard to some other fraudulent transactions criminal cases were filed and in one of the criminal cases filed against the petitioner, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. We are informed that in the other case the petitioner has been acquitted.

(2.) Initially a preliminary enquiry was held and thereafter a regular departmental enquiry was conducted after serving a chargesheet on the petitioner. The Bank relied on 40 documents in support of its case and also examined six witnesses to substantiate the charge. The petitioner chose not to step into the witness box and did not also examine any witness. After considering the evidence and material on record the Enquiry Officer held that the charge is proved. For conveniently dealing with the charge, the Enquiry Officer had split up the same into some relevant issues and had proceeded to record the findings on the issues that were framed by him. After receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, caused the same to be served on the petitioner and after obtaining the petitioner's reply to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, has proceeded to pass an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service of the Bank vide order dated 31. 5. 1996, after concurring with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority) carried an appeal to the General Manager (Personnel) (Appellate Authority). The Appellate Authority by an order dated 31st October 1996 has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dismissing the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R. D. Bhatt has made the following submissions: