PRADEEP CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was posted as a Cashier/ Clerk in the respondent Bank. An FIR at crime No.814/2009 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Ss. 420, 406, 467, 468 of I.P.C. It is further submitted that the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner are with regard to account of Municipal Council, Dabra and issuance of check of Rs.5,95,400.00 dtd. 10/4/2008 and transfer of that account. In the earlier round of litigation, the inquiry was challenged by filing W.P. No. 3455/2010 before this Hon'ble Court. Vide order dtd. 19/7/2010, the departmental proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet dtd. 26/2/2010 were stayed. Despite the stay order, the Inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte and prepared the inquiry report on 22/11/2010. Although the stay was vacated on 11/10/2010, the record reveals that ex parte proceedings had been conducted during the subsistence of the stay order, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. Even after vacation of the stay, no fresh notice was issued to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that no intimation was given regarding the date on which the ex parte proceedings were concluded. The receipt relied upon by the respondents (Annexure R-3) is alleged to be forged. The inquiry was conducted at Dabra, whereas the letter was sent from Gohad, District Bhind, which is about 80 km away. The signatures shown on the alleged receipt dtd. 7/7/2010 are not those of the petitioner. The sequence of dates itself creates serious doubt and indicates manipulation of record. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated on account of fraud and violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the allegations are per se illegal and unsustainable. With regard to the cheque of Rs.5,95,400.00, the petitioner, being a Single Window Operator, was neither the clearing nor the sanctioning authority. As per the Voucher Verification Report (VVR), the cheque was authorized by the Chief Manager, Shri Pradeep Verma. Hence, fastening liability upon the petitioner is perverse and contrary to record.