LAWS(GAU)-2015-7-69

SHRI DEBAJIT SAIKIA, S/O LATE BHOLANATH SAIKIA, RESIDENT OF SEUJPUR, DIBRUGARH, P.O. & P.S. DIBRUGARH, DISTRICT Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, H.O.

Decided On July 21, 2015
Shri Debajit Saikia, S/o Late Bholanath Saikia, Resident of Seujpur, Dibrugarh, P.O. And P.S. Dibrugarh, District Appellant
V/S
United Bank of India, H.O. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.K. Kasyap, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents United Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Management) are represented by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. Dutta.

(2.) The petitioner was serving as a Cashier/General Clerk in the Tirap Branch of the United Bank of India and at that stage the Charge Memo dated 7.8.2004 (Annexure-B) was issued against him where it was, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner created fictitious Credit entries in the Reinvestment Plan Account (RIP) of Bank's customers and through such manipulation and creation of fictitious Debit and Credit vouchers, an amount of Rs.9,83,616.00 was misappropriated and accordingly the employee was asked to give his response to the charges. In his response dated 25.8.2004 (Annexure-C), the petitioner issued a general denial and applied for stay of the departmental proceedings until the criminal case is concluded. Not being satisfied with the response, a departmental enquiry was ordered where the petitioner did't initially participate. Eventually a time bound de novo proceeding was ordered by this Court in the WP(C) No.2791/2005 where under a fresh departmental enquiry was conducted by Abhay Kumar Mahapatra when the employee submitted his written brief of defense.

(3.) After conclusion of the proceeding, the inquiry report was given on 6.4.2006 (Annexure-L). On the basis of the Bank's records, the statement of the Management witnesses and also the employee's Confessional Statement (ME-25), all 13 charges were found to be have been proved and the petitioner was found to have illegally derived personal benefits to the tune of Rs.9,83,616.00. Concurring with the finding of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority issued a 2nd show-cause-notice on 3.5.2006 (Annexure-N) proposing to inflict the penalty of dismissal and eventually through the impugned order dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure-P) the delinquent was dismissed from service. Although an Appeal was filed, the Appellate Authority through the impugned order dated 20.10.2006 approved the dismissal order and rejected the Appeal.