SNEHAL HEMANT PANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is working as assistant manager with Syndicate bank at its Naupada branch. The applicant is an employee of the said bank for the last 28 years and it is asserted in the applicant that her record is unblemished.

(2.) ONE Sandip Pawar who is co-accused was an authorized representative of Tata Motors Limited. On 1.10.2008 he submitted instructions on a letter head of the company to transfer a sum of Rs.61 lacs to SRP account stated to be that of Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. to HDFC bank, Navi Mumbai having account No.02281540105510. The fact of issuing instructions by Sandip Pawar on 1.10.08 for transfer of the amount finds place in the complaint/FIR lodged by the Chief Officer of the bank. Though the amount was transferred to the said account the HDFC bank did not deposit the same in the named account but returned it back as the name and the account number deferred. 2.10.08 was holiday and on 3.10.08 said Sandip Pawar instructed that the amount be remitted in the account of SRP of HDFC bank. It is stated that he had orally so instructed. When the amount was transferred second time on 3.10.08, the same came to be deposited in the account in name of SRP which appears to be short form of Sandip Raghunath Pawar. This unauthorized and illegal transfer of Rs.61 lacs from the amount of Tata Motors came to be noticed by Tata Motors Pvt. Ld and hence by a letter dated 3.3.09 it informed the Syndicate bank that sum of Rs.61 lacs has not been deposited in the account of Tata Motors and thereafter a complaint was filed by the Chief Manager.