N. GNANA PRAKHASH RAO Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the petitioner in W.P. No. 17145 of 2003. He felt aggrieved by the dismissal thereof. The brief facts are as under:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that only Xerox copies of the complaints were produced and the request for producing originals of the complaints were rejected. He contends that before relying on the Xerox copies of complaints, the necessary formalities to prove the same acceptable secondary evidence were not complied with. It is also argued that one of the complainant R. Panduranga Rao was not examined at all and thereby his statements made before the Investigating Officer were not put to test, causing prejudice to the appellant. Another contention is that the enquiry report was not furnished before issuance of show -cause notice by the disciplinary authority but the same was furnished along with show -cause notice. Violation of principles of natural justice is also pleaded.

(3.) A perusal of the record would reveal that the enquiry officer had categorically found that the two charges levelled against the appellant were proved and they are all grave in nature. The first charge relates to acceptance of cash of Rs. 15,000/ - from a lady customer on 07.01.2000 and issuing of a current account counterfoil instead of fixed deposit receipt. The Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of the customer and he was examined. Later during the domestic enquiry, the customer who was examined as M.W. 3, had deposed that she had called up her cousin on the evening of 07.01.2000 not to deposit the money in fixed deposit account and the money may be kept with the appellant to be collected from the appellant later. However, in the enquiry, it came to light that the money was returned to the customer on 20.01.2000 when she threatened to lodge a complaint. Apprehending adverse consequences and apprehending that the misappropriation may be exposed, the appellant is said to have issued a counterfoil in the instance case. However, a counterfoil which is used in respect of current deposit account with round seal, was issued instead of the one for fixed deposit receipt. Simply because the customer did not lodge a complaint and the money has been returned to the customer, the illegality can not be wiped away. This aspect was elaborately considered by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and appellate authority. The same being essentially a question of fact and the conclusions arrived by the authorities below not vitiated on account of any non consideration and non application of mind, the order of punishment cannot be interfered with.