M JAGDEESH CASHIER CUM CLERK STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD BALANAGAR BRANCH HYDERABAD Vs. ZONAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD ZONAL OFFICE RAMKOTI HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as Cashier-cum-Clerk in Balanagar branch of State Bank of Hyderabad, is alleged to have committed certain irregularities in 1983. On 7.1.1984 a show-cause notice was issued to him by the 2nd respondent alleging misconduct on two counts. After explanation of the petitioner to the said notice was considered, a charge sheet was issued on 11.7.1985 and an enquiry was conducted into those charges. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing punishment of dismissal. The petitioner gave his reply to the second show-cause notice. On 20.8.1986 the 2nd respondent dismissed the petitioner from service. He carried the matter in departmental appeal, but that was dismissed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No. ZM(H)/Staff/Disc/15, dated 10/14.2.1987. It is the correctness of this order that is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition by praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the said order and to quash the same.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is stated that on 7.1.1984 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter a charge-sheet was given to him on 9.1.1985 for the misconduct committed by him while he was working as cashier-cum-clerk at Balanagar branch. It is stated that in the 2nd week of July, 1983 when balancing of recurring deposit account was taken up a fictitious credit entry of Rs. 500.00 dated 10.1.1983 was noticed in Account No. 773 of Sri T.Ramakrishna. The said Ramakrishna had been called to ascertain the factual position. He stated that on 3.1.1983 he gave a sum of Rs. 500.00 to the petitioner along with his recurring deposit pass-book for crediting in his account. In support of his contention Ramakrishna produced the pass-book relating to his R.D. account wherein Rs. 500.00 was credited by the petitioner on 3.1.1983. He also gave a complaint to verify the bank records concerning his S.B. account and R.D. account. It was also noticed that on 3.1.83 the petitioner did not credit the amount of Rs. 500.00; nor did he credit the said amount on 10.1.83 as recorded by him in the ledger account, therefore he has misappropriated the said amount of Rs. 500.00. On verification it was noticed that taking advantage of the confidence reposed in him by the said Ramakrishna, the petitioner temporarily misappropriated some other amounts. On these facts a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. As his explanation was not satisfactory, regular enquiry was conducted against him after giving a charge memo. The particulars of the enquiry are also given to show that a fair and reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner. It is stated that after due enquiry the petitioner was found guilty of charges of misappropriation of the amount and tampering with the records and also of temporary misappropriation. In the light of the finding of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was given second show-cause notice calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. After taking into consideration the explanation, the order of dismissal was passed against him on 20.8.1986. The appeal preferred by the petitioner on 28.12.1986 was considered by the appellate authority and the same was dismissed on 10.2.1987 in Memo No. ZM(H)/Staff/Disc/15. It is asserted that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

(3.) Sri V. Raghunadha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, raised three contentions before me: (1) the order of dismissal was passed without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated and is liable to be quashed; (2) the alleged complainant Sri T. Ramakrishna was not examined, as such there was no evidence before the enquiry officer to find the petitioner guilty of the charges and the findings are based on no evidence and therefore any order passed on the basis of such an enquiry is wholly illegal; (3) and finally it is contended that even if the charges are found to have been proved the punishment of dismissal from service for the alleged misappropriation, when in fact no loss was caused tc the bank, is disproportionate to the misconduct held prove against the petitioner.