SUNIL S/O UMAKANT MAHASHABDE, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCCU: RETIRED, R/O BHAGYASHRI, PLOT NO.3, DEEPNAGAR, SHAHANOORWADI, AURANGABAD Vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI 05

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, at the relevant time, was serving as a Branch Manager. Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment upon the petitioner thereby compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The petitioner thereafter filed review of the said judgment passed by the appellate authority. The review is also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, present petition is filed.

(2.) Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that four charges, which were framed against the petitioner were not substantiated. On 13.1.2006, a complaint was made against the present petitioner to the effect that the complainant had deposited Rs.27,000.00, with the petitioner for one time settlement of his crop loan account, which had become nonperforming asset. But instead of depositing Rs.27,000/, the petitioner deposited only Rs.20,000/and remaining Rs.7,000/are misappropriated by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that on 18.10.2002, the complainant was informed about his loan account and was directed to repay the loan amount. On or about 18.8.2005, the complainant requested the petitioner by filing an application to settle his loan account as against Rs.20,000/. The copy of said letter is a matter of record in the enquiry proceedings. The complainant had deposited Rs.20,000/with the Cashier of the bank and not with the petitioner. Copy of the receipt of Rs.20,000/issued by the Cashier of the bank is also a part of record of the enquiry. The petitioner vide letter dated 19.4.2006 also offered the same explanation. The initiation of enquiry is based with malafide intention. On 18.4.2006, the complainant was served with copy of the complaint and on the very date, the Zonal Manager, Nagpur Zonal Office, informed the opinion taken by him.

(3.) The learned counsel submits that the charge no.2 is not at all proved. The charge no.1 was with regard to misutilizing the facility of reimbursement of lodging expenses as well as reimbursement of local conveyance charges for personal gain through misrepresentation and submission of sham lodging bill. The said charge is sought to be proved on the basis of letter dated 24.8.2006 issued by the General Manager of Hotel Rajdhani. The General Manager accepted the bill to be original one, but further stated that the said bill is issued by the servant keeping the management in dark by acceptance of a bribe. The learned counsel submits that the bills normally are issued by the hotel management and served through the staff. The said charge ought to have been held as not proved.