SARBESWAR SWAIN Vs. ALLHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the impugned order of punishment awarded to him in the Disciplinary Proceeding. He was lowered down by four stages in the time scale vide the impugned order dated March 9, 1989.

(2.) The petitioner, while working as the Manager in Allahabad Bank, Sunabeda Branch, during the period from August 25, 1980 to August 7, 1988, was the custodian of blank draft leaves, out of which 49 leaves were found to be missing. Subsequently six drafts were presented before the Bhubaneswar branch and Damonjodi Branch of the Allahabad Bank and an amount of Rs.2,77,800.70 was withdrawn. Consequently, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on July 1, 1988 inter alia alleging that he was responsible for the same as he was the custodian of the blank draft leaves at the relevant time. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and thereafter Disciplinary Proceedings were conducted in which the charges were found to have been proved against him. Consequently order of punishment dated March 9, 1989 lowering him down by four stages in the existing time scale, which he was getting at that time, was passed. By another order of the same date he was reinstated but with the condition that nothing more would be payable to him towards his pay and allowances during the period of suspension. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager, who was the appellate authority. However, by order dated November 20, 1989, the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mohanty, has raised the following contentions:

(3.) We have carefully perused the copies of the documents annexed to the writ petition and found that the Enquiring Officer has dealt with the application of the petitioner regarding supply of the documents and passed orders thereon rejecting the application on the ground that some of the documents mentioned in the application of the petitioner had no relevancy with the matter and regarding the remaining two documents he had not specified any particulars or the dates of the said documents and as such they were not identified.