JAYADEV PARIDA Vs. BALASORE GRAMYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Messenger at Badapokhari Branch of Balasore Gramya Bank has filed this application challenging the order dated 6.6.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority awarding the punishment of removal from service under Annexure-11 under Regulation 30 (2) of Balasore Gramya Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 and confirmation thereof by the appellate authority vide Annexure-13 dated 13.03.2001 under Regulation 32 (b) of Balasore Gramya Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980

(2.) The short fact of the case in hand is that the petitioner being an under matriculate was engaged on daily wage basis as Messenger in Balasore Gramya Bank on 5.3.1986. Pursuant to which, he joined in the said post and subsequently his services were regularized in the year 1992. Thereafter he was posted at Balasore Branch and while he was discharging his duty at the said branch, having committed certain irregularities while functioning as Messenger, charge sheet was issued to him on the allegation of misappropriation of depositors money amounting to Rs.20952/- in sixteen numbers of savings bank accounts by issuing fake deposit receipts/counterfoils to the depositors, borrowing of Rs.6000/- from two numbers of IRDP beneficiaries, misappropriation of Rs.6000/- by encashing withdrawal slip of Smt. Padmabati Rout in her S.B. Account No.919 without her knowledge, misappropriation of Rs.25500/- from two numbers of IRDP loanees by issuing fake counterfoils/receipts, non-adjustment of sundry debtors advance of Rs.928/- availed of by him against T.A./L.F.C. and taking away of bank's petromax light from Badapokhari branch. Therefore, he was placed under suspension along with one Sudarsan Dehuri, Cashier of the very same branch on the selfsame charge as per Rule 30 (4) of Balasore Gramya Bank (Staff) Service Regulation, 1980 (hereinafter referred as 'the Regulation 1980') vide letter dated 14.6.1997 under Annexure-4 by the Chairman of the bank.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that admittedly the petitioner has discharged his duty of a messenger and he has not been entrusted with the job of handling of bank accounts or the register so as to commit irregularity or illegality in misappropriating the bank money in any manner. It is stated that the Chairman being the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of removal from service and he is also the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the bank, the appellate authority, and being one of the members of the appellate authority he has confirmed his own order in appeal. Therefore, the Board of Director being biased against the petitioner has confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It is further stated that in view of the admission of the manager and cashier that they are the custodian of seal, receipts and they authenticated the books of accounts, no liability is attributable on the messenger as he is no way connected with the alleged misappropriation of bank's money and as such proceeding as against the cashier Sri Sudarsan Dehury was initiated by putting him under suspension and thereafter he has also been removed from service. He has also admitted in the proceeding that he has committed such irregularity and illegality and thereafter deposited the amount before the bank. It is stated that the charges were proved and order has been passed on no evidence. It is stated that the material witnesses namely Maya Marandi and Asu Hansda have not been examined so far as charge no.2 is concerned. Similarly, so far as charge nos.3 and 4 are concerned, Smt. Padmabati Rout and Dasaya Singh were not examined. Therefore, the punishment of removal of service imposed by the authority is shockingly disproportionate to the allegation made against the petitioner as the petitioner being a messenger is not authorized to deal with bank's money. Therefore, he seeks for quashing of the order passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority in appeal vide Annexures-11 and 13 respectively and grant of all consequential relief as due and admissible to the petitioner in accordance with law. To substantiate his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments in The State of Bombay v. Nurul Latif Khan, 1966 AIR(SC) 269, Gangadhar Mishra v. Director, Text Book Production and Marketing and others, 2005 2 OrissaLR 663 and Dwijabar Bhuyan v. Konark Television Ltd. and another, 2006 1 OrissaLR 144.