KISHAN CHAND DALAL Vs. HARYANA GRAMIN BANK ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, who was working with Haryana Gramin Bank (earlier known as Ambala Kurukshetrra Gramin Bank Co-operative Bank Building, Delhi Road, Rohtak) was proceeded against under the Ambala Kurukshetra Gramin Bank Officers & Employees Service Regulations, 2000. The charges framed against him in the charge sheet dated 2.3.2000 are as under: Charge-1: Sh.KC Dalal in league with Mr.Rajvir Singh, Clerk-cum-Cashier indulged in various fraudulent activities causing pecuniary gains to himself at the cost of the bank and tarnished the image of the bank. (a) He in league with Mr.Rajvir Singh, Clerk-cum- Cashier embezzled Rs.1,000/-from the SF A/c No.824 of Mrs. Lajwanti w/o Sher Singh, R/o Vill.Alahar on 2.8.99. He intentionally overlooked the authenticity of the withdrawal/entry dated 2.8.99 entered by Mr.Rajvir Singh, Clerk-cum-Cashier and thus committed gross misconduct in terms of regulation 19 of AKGB Staff Service Regulation-1985. Charge-1 (b): He accompanied Mr.Yash Pal, Messenger and visited Dehradun (UP) on 16.10.1996 to 17.10.1996 for recovery in the overdue loan account of Mr.Naresh Kumar S/o Mr.Soran R/o Vill.Alahar who was temporarily residing there and recovered Rs.5,080/-from the borrower. But he accounted for Rs.4,000/-in the loan account of Mr.Naresh Kumar on 17/18.10.96 and thus embezzled Rs.1,080/-. Charge-II: Mr.KC Dalal worked in a manner, which eroded the credibility and reputation of the Bank and acted in a manner unbecoming an officer of the Bank. (a) He shielded the misdeeds of Mr.Rajvir Singh, Clerk/Cashier who indulged in various fraudulent activities during his absence and concealed the vital facts from the higher authorities. He was instrumental in refund of the excess amount of Rs.500/-to Mr.Joginder Singh embezzled by Mr.Rajvir Singh, Clerk/Cashier in liquidation of his father's loan account maintained by BO Alahar in his presence but suppressed the truth from the higher authorities. Charge II (b): He alongwith Mr.Yashpal, Messenger went to Dehradun (UP) for recovery purpose on 16.10.96 to 17.10.96 but made him to mark his presence in the branch for the said dates in total contravention to the laid down guidelines. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the charges, who submitted his report on 9.1.2002. Upon completion of enquiry, show cause notice dated 28.3.2002 was served upon the appellant asking him to show cause as to why punishment of down grading him by two steps in incremental scale be not imposed upon him as per the Rules.

(2.) As can be discerned from the record, the Enquiry Officer did not find the charges against the appellant proved, which was differed by the punishing authority. The contention raised before the courts accordingly was that the disciplinary authority had not agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and had made adverse observation/findings without giving any cogent and logical reasons. The plea further was that the show cause notice proposing penalty was not based on the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and that the appellant also did not get adequate opportunity to defend himself. Some other submissions were also made on the merits and on appreciation of the evidence, which may not need a notice in detail in view of the limited submission pressed by the counsel for the appellant while arguing the Regular Second Appeal.

(3.) The plea here basically is that while the disciplinary authority could disagree with the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, but before recording its own findings, the disciplinary authority was required to afford opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The disciplinary authority had, however, straightway proposed punishment without hearing the appellant while disagreeing with the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer.