MURARI SARKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench on 16/4/2021 in the writ petition being no. WPA 21237 of 2010.

(2.) By the impugned Judgment and Order the Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition praying for reinstating the appellant/ writ petitioner in service with back wages and with all consequential benefits by cancelling the Order of dismissal of the writ petitioner from service. The fact of the present case is that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Bank of Baroda in the year 1980 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Junior Manager (Grade-I Officer) in the year 2006. On 5/5/2008 a show-cause notice was served upon the writ petitioner by the Dy. General Manager in-charge of the Zone of the said Bank alleging misappropriation of fund. The writ petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 7/7/2008 denying all the allegations. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued Memo. of charge-sheet on 25/8/2008 and the writ petitioner thereafter submitted a written statement against the charge-sheet denying all the allegations. After receipt of the written statement, the enquiry authority directed the writ petitioner to appear before it. On 31/3/2009 the Disciplinary Authority issued order of major penalty by way of dismissing the petitioner from his service with effect from the date of receipt of the said order. Being aggrieved the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was ultimately dismissed. As such, the instant writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ writ petitioner has submitted that the enquiry proceedings do not show that the Bank of Baroda sustained any monetary loss. He has further submitted that there is no iota of evidence to the effect that the appellant/writ petitioner has misappropriated fund or deceived anybody. He further submitted that at the highest the actions of the appellant/writ petitioner might be of irregularities in CBS transactions. He has further submitted that the charges levelled against the appellant/ writ petitioner is devoid of particulars and has been issued by incompetent authorities. As such, the punishment inflicted upon the appellant/writ petitioner is not at all sustainable.