RAMANI MEDHI Vs. ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a well settled principle of law that each case is an authority for what it actually decides. On this note, the following facts are noticed.

(2.) The petitioner while serving as the Branch Manager at Rangia Branch of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank was served with Articles of Charge and Statement of Allegations in respect of an enquiry proposed to be held against him under Regulation 30A.1(b) of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2006. Two charges were levelled against the petitioner corresponding to his tenure of service at Rangia branch for the period from 02.09.2006 to 23.07.08. As per the Articles of Charges, the first charge was that on 22.10.2007, he received an amount of Rs.1685.00 which had been deposited by one Shri Basistha Rajba-nshi towards mortgage charge for the creation of equitable mortgage of his land. Such amount was not deposited by the petitioner into the Bank's cash account either on the next working day or even thereafter. It was only on detection that the petitioner had deposited the misappropriated amount to the bank on 16.08.2008. The second charge was in respect of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.22,400/- which had been deposited by Sankardev Sishu Niketan in its general fund account on 12.01.2008. The said amount was also not deposited into the Bank's cash account and it was only on detection thereof, that the petitioner had deposited the same on 22.01.2009.

(3.) On the aforesaid charges, a regular disciplinary proceeding was initiated by allowing opportunity of participation to the petitioner. Enquiry was concluded with the Report of the Enquiry Officer and charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. Accordingly, by order dated 05.12.2012, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner in terms of Regulation 39.1(b) of the aforesaid Service Regulations of 2006. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 21.12.2012, wherein, a plea was taken that the alleged failure to deposit the money in time was due to excessive work-load and it was never the intention of the petitioner to cause misappropriation of the same.