MADHUSUDAN YADAV Vs. KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 13-3-1997 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the respondent No. 1 as also the order dated 12-1-1998, passed in Appeal, by the Board of Directors (respondent No. 2) of the Kshetriya Gramin Bank.

(2.) KSHETRIYA Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad is constituted under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 30 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, the Board of Directors of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad, in consultation with the Sponsor Bank, Central Bank of India, and the Reserve Bank of India and with previous sanction of the Central Government, have framed Regulations known as "kshetriya Gramin Bank Hoshangabad, Staff Service Regulations". It is not disputed that the service of the petitioner, who was posted as Manager in the said Kshetriya Gramin Bank at Hoshangabad, is governed by the said Staff Service Regulations. According to the petitioner, the petitioner joined the said Bank as Branch Manager on 8-9-1976 and while he was so posted, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 21-3-1996 (Annexure-P/1) pointing out the misconduct committed by him by abusing his position as a Branch Manager of the Bank. One of the charges levelled against the petitioner was that he had contrary to instructions, discounted cheques and had caused a loss to the Bank in the sum of Rs. 32,513/ -. According to the petitioner, he had filed his Reply Annexure-P/2 in which he had frankly accepted the ignorance about the provisions made in the various circulars of the Bank and had tendered an apology for the said procedural lapse. The petitioner was, thereafter, directed by a communication Annexure-P/3 to deposit a sum of Rs. 32,513/- towards loss of interest on account of unauthorised discounting of cheques and the petitioner, by Annexure-P/4, placed on record his willingness for the deduction of the said amount from his salary and, accordingly, the respondents started deductions from his salary vide Annexure-P/11 w. e. f. October, 1997.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, although the deduction of the pecuniary loss caused to the Bank from the salary of the petitioner constituted an implied assurance that no further action would be taken against the petitioner, the petitioner was sent a show cause notice dated 27-2-1997 (Annexure-P/5) by which on account of admission of Charge No. 1 by the petitioner penalty of reduction of two increments was proposed and later, by order dated 13-3-1997 (Annexure-P/6), the petitioner was visited with the said penalty and the penalty was implemented vide memo dated 13-3-1997 (Annexure-P/7) with the result, the basic pay of the petitioner was reduced to Rs. 3780/- from Rs. 4020/ -.