DINESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by way of filing the present petition before this Court has challenged the legality and validity of the order of punishment dated 25.3.1991 which is Annexure P -21 to the petition. By this petition the penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed on the petitioner. Before passing of order of dismissal the petitioner was kept under suspension on 7.4.1984 which is Annexure P -3. Subsequently a charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner on 24.9.1985 which is Annexure P -4 to the petition.

(2.) IN the said charge -sheet the allegations which were against the petitioner had been that at the time when the petitioner was posted as a Branch Manager then he while sanctioned the loan in contravention to the procedure prescribed by the Bank. It is alleged that petitioner has not properly scrutinized cases, therefore, he has violated the instructions time to time issued by the Bank. It is also a charge that the loan which was disbursed to the persons by the petitioner, were suspicious. It is also a charge against the petitioner that petitioner was an instrument in misappropriation of an amount of Rs.23,336/ -. Subsequently the said amount was deposited in the Bank. The aforesaid amount was withdrawn from the Bank. It is also a charge against the petitioner that petitioner has taken on 5.1.1984 Rs.150/ - from Shri Deepak Kumar, Sharma who has taken earlier the loan. Petitioner only deposited Rs.l00/ - and did not deposit Rs.50/ -. Thus, the said amount has been defalcated by the petitioner.

(3.) THE enquiry thereafter was fixed for 3.3.1987. On this date an application on behalf of the petitioner was moved that he may be permitted to bring his defence assistant in the enquiry. According to him since no person of the respondent bank was willing to act as defence assistant, therefore, an application was moved to the enquiry officer. The, enquiry officer ordered to nominate a defence assistant to any person who is employed by the respondent Bank. The petitioner sought a liberty to nominate a person out of the employees of the Bank and accordingly the request was allowed. On this date the enquiry officer also directed that in case the petitioner wants to inspect certain more documents then the list as such be submitted by 19.5.1987. On 14.7.1987 the enquiry was taken up and on this date the petitioner was subjected to many questions by the enquiry officer and also by the presenting officer. The enquiry officer put the questions to the petitioner by showing him the documents and the vouchers on which basis the charges against the petitioner were made out. Thereafter the petitioner was subjected to the cross -examination. The next date of enquiry was fixed for 31st July, 1987; Oil this date, after completing other formalities the cross -examination of the petitioner continued. In the departmental enquiry one Rajendra Parsai was assisting the petitioner as a defence assistant. The said defence assistant put questions to the petitioner and the petitioner replied to the same. Subsequently an objection was submitted n behalf of the petitioner which is Annexure P -14 to the petition. The said objection was In relation to the corrigendum of the charge -sheet issued to the petitioner by way of Annexure P -13 dated 26.8.1987. On behalf of the petitioner it was signed by the defence assistant nominated by the petitioner. The next date of enquiry was fixed for 22nd July, 1987. On this date the enquiry officer again directed the cross -examination of the petitioner and on this date the evidence in relation to charge No.2 is adduced and again the petitioner, is subjected to cross -examination. After the enquiry was completed an order -, of dismissal was passed on 25.3.1991 which is Annexure P -21 to the petition. This order was based upon the evidence recorded by the enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges.