DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD Vs. NATHURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Bank has preferred this second appeal against the impugned order dated 21.4.1999 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sagar, in Appeal No. 14/98. Respondent of this appeal has also preferred Second Appeal No. 288/99 against the same impugned order claiming back wages. Both these appeals have been clubbed together for their joint disposal by a common order to be passed in Appeal No. 25/99.

(2.) BRIED facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent was Samiti Prabandhak in the appellant Bank and at the relevant time he was posted in the appellant bank for collection of electricity bills. He was to collect electricity bills and was authorised to issue receipts to those persons, at the same time collected amount was required to be deposited in the appellant Bank.

(3.) THEREUPON he was placed under suspension and after issuance of charge-sheet, regular domestic enquiry was held against him. During the enquiry, the respondent admitted the collection of amount from all those persons and it appears that during the course of enquiry he has also returned back the amounts to those persons. But after collecting the amount from Shri S.D. Shrivastava, Shri Mishra and 19 other persons, he did not deposit the same in the Bank. He had issued receipt to all these persons. On receipt of enquiry report as per decision of the staff committee, he was removed from the services of the Bank w.e.f. 2.9.1995. Against this removal order, he filed a dispute case before the Asstt. Registrar, Tikamgarh, being Case No. 68/95. In this dispute case, the learned Asstt. Registrar by his impugned order dated 10.3.1998 set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement of the respondent with back wages. Appellant Bank filed first appeal against this order before Joint Registrar, and the learned Joint Registrar by his impugned order dated 21.4.1999 has maintained the order of the Asstt., Registrar with regard to reinstatement of the respondent, but he modified the same and disallowed the claim of back wages. Against this order, the appellant Bank has preferred this second appeal and the respondent has also preferred Second Appeal No. 288/99 claiming back wages. Both parties are assailing the same impugned order of the Joint Registrar to be illegal.