SYNDICATE BANK Vs. VIKAS KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and order dated December 20, 2013 passed in WP No.196 of 2013 by the Hon 'ble Single Bench whereby and whereunder the order of the appellant authority together with the order of dismissal and enquiry proceedings were set aside and the disciplinary authority was permitted to take steps for holding fresh enquiry beyond the stage of receipt of written statement filed by the private respondent.

(2.) INITIALLY the private respondent attempted to stall the departmental enquiry as any disclosure of the defence may be used against him in the criminal case, but the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry proceedings which prompted the private respondent to file a writ petition ( WP No.779 of 2011) before this Court.

(3.) SOME of the documents authored by another persons were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit without calling for the respective author of the document to prove the contents thereof. The summary of the evidence so adduced by the said witnesses are that one Vimla Devi opened a saving bank account on June 21, 2008 with an initial deposit of Rs.100/ -. Since there was no operation in the said bank account it was made inoperative until a stale demand draft of Rs.66,000/ - was credited to that account. The said account holder made complaint on June 3, 2010 to the concerned police station alleging that in the night of June 1, 2010 three unidentified persons forcibly entered her house and obtained her signature on some papers by force and have also taken away the passbook. The Offsite Monitoring Cell of Headquarters at Manipal observed that on May 31, 2010 a stale demand draft of Rs.66,000/ - was liquidated and credited to the savings bank account of Vimla Devi and a sum of Rs.20,000/ - was withdrawn through ATM card of ICICI Bank. The private respondent misusing his official position liquidated the outstanding amount by using the user ID of the two Assistant Managers. The said witness further stated that the private respondent have admitted the aforesaid misconduct in a letter addressed to the Chief Manager which is marked as Ext.MEX -5.