BASANTA KUMAR DAS Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. U.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P.Kataky, Learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. M.R.Pathak for the respondents. The petitioner before us, Shri Basanta Kumar Das, was an employee of the Central Bank of India and he was working as Clerk in the Bijoynagar Branch of the Bank for the period 2.3.87 to 18.3.95. the petitioner was thereafter transferred to Panchgram Branch where he joined his duties on 24.3.95. Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Memo dated 7.12.95 and two charge-sheets were submitted against him. The charges were in respect of misappropriation of Bank`s fund at Bijoynagar Branch as well as at Panchgram Branch. A departmental enquiry was held wherein the witnesses were examined on behalf of the Bank and as many as 64 documents were produced and exhibited. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the Charge No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in respect of Bijoynagar Branch have not been proved. But the remaining 10 (ten) charges in respect of both the Branches have been established. The findings were accepted by the disciplinary authority but after hearing the petitioner it provided the punishment of dismissal from banking service without notice. The petitioner preferred an appeal but the said appeal was also dismissed. A review/mercy petition was also filed but no relief was granted. Hence, the present writ petition. We have perused the statement of allegation and find that the allegation against the petitioner was regarding withdrawal of the money from customers account by forging the withdrawal slip. All the 8 (eight) charges in respect of Bijoynagar Branch were withdrawal of money from the account of one Sri Jayanti Das on different dates. The said Jayanti Das is an illiterate lady, who knows to write her signature only. The Inquiry Officer gave the benefit of doubt in respect of 4 (four) charges but found the petitioner guilty of the remaining 4 (four) charges. The said Jayanti Das was also examined as a witness and she has categorically deposed that during the above period, she had not withdrawn any money from the Bank and the signatures appearing in the withdrawal slip are not her. The Inquiry officer had relied on her testimony to hold the petitioner guilty. We also find that there were materials before the Inquiry Officer and it cannot be said to be a case of no evidence.

(2.) So far the 6 (six) charges concerning Panchgram Branch is concerned, the allegation is that during the short period from 19.6.95 to 13.10.95 the petitioner was serving as Receiving Cashier in the said Branch received certain amounts from one of the customers who had deposited hs amount without obtaining scroll number and after handing over the counterfoil affixing the cash received stamp under his initials did not enter the amount in Cash Receipt Register. IN some cases the petitioner, however, made the deposit on subsequent dates by preparing Pay-in-Slip etc. etc. All these documents were produced and it was established that the accused has committed misappropriation and has mis-conducted himself. Although Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel has challenged the finding of the Inquiry Officer, we find that the petitioner has not alleged any irregularity in the matter of holding departmental proceeding as there is no procedural lapses so far the materials on record is concerned, as stated above, this is not a case of no evidence and the allegations are definitely serious.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the punishment meted out to the employee is disproportionate to the allegation and any other punishment except the punishment of dismissal from service could have been awarded to the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the matter may be sent back to the concerned authorities to re-consider the punishment.