ASHISH KUMAR GOON Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B.R. Dey, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that while he was serving as Special Assistant in the Canara Bank at Sikh Temple Branch, he received a letter dated 26-08-2002 from the respondent No. 2 stating that he had committed serious irregularities in the Suspense Deposit Account. The said irregularities was noticed at the time of creation of master data for computerization of the Sikh Temple Branch and the Suspense Deposit Account was not tallied since 30-09-2009 and there was difference of Rs. 18,522/- in the account. An investigation was conducted and it was found that by letter dated 29-06-2001, one Mr. Dilip Das requested to pay back Rs. 18,522/- through Pay Order as he deposited a cheque on 02-08-1989 without writing the account number in the pay-in-slip and the same was kept in Suspense Deposit Account of the branch for want of full particulars. On the top of the said letter, the Senior Manager has specifically mentioned to verify old records and then credit. On 30-06-2001, the petitioner prepared the debit slip for debiting Rs. 18,522/- to Suspense Deposit Account and also credit slip for the DD favouring Shri Dilip Das for Rs. 18,522/-. The transaction was put through on 02-07-2001. The debit slip for debiting Rs. 18522/- to Suspense Deposit Account was made towards the below mentioned credit items:

(3.) BY letter dated 26-08-2002, the petitioner was called to submit explanation which was accordingly done by the petitioner on 20-09- 2002. On further facts being discovered, another explanation letter dated 07-10-2002 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner replied to the same on 17-10-2002. The authorities not being satisfied with the reply dated 20-09-2002 and 17-10-2002, charge-sheet dated 13-11-2002 was issued to the petitioner. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings by his reply dated 14-06-2003 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The findings of the Enquiry Officer was also furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 09-07-2003 against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply of the petitioner as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner by memo dated 27-09-2003. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said punishment. The Appellate Authority after hearing to the petitioner, rejected his appeal by order dated 30-12-2004. Hence the instant writ petition.