JASWINDER SINGH Vs. U.T. ADMINISTRATION OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Senior Clerk (re-designated as Accountant) in the Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter, 'the Bank'), the third respondent herein, was dismissed from service, vide order dated 09.03.2016. By way of this writ petition, he assails the said order on the grounds that it is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. He also seeks a direction to the Bank to treat him as in service and to pay him the emoluments that he was receiving prior to passing of the impugned order.

(2.) On 06.04.2016, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order but directed that the petitioner should be kept under deemed suspension. Thereafter, by order dated 23.10.2018, this Court made it clear that the petitioner would have to repay the subsistence allowance paid to him under the earlier interim order in case the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) Facts, to the extent germane, unfold thus: The petitioner entered the service of the Bank as a Junior Clerk on 16.04.1992. He was promoted as a Senior Clerk in the year 1998. While working as such at the Sector 26 Branch of the Bank at Chandigarh, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, vide order dated 03.07.2009 passed by its Managing Director. Notice dated 18.07.2009 was then issued by the General Manager of the Bank calling upon the petitioner to explain why certain ledger sheets of his own SB A/c No. 590 in the Sector 26 Branch of the Bank were missing and threatening disciplinary action. The petitioner submitted his reply on 21.07.2009 disclaiming responsibility for the missing record. The General Manager then addressed letter dated 24.09.2009 to the petitioner informing him that inspection of the records of the Sector 26 Branch by a team had revealed that he had swindled Rs. 7,03,062/-, of which Rs. 2,64,197/- had been recovered, and calling upon him to deposit the balance Rs. 4,38,865/- as per his assurance that he would deposit any amount found recoverable due to his fault, vide his letters dated 27.07.2009 and 21.08.2009. Be it noted that neither of these letters of assurance has been placed before this Court. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.09.2009 seeking a copy of the final report of the inspection team. The General Manager then issued notice dated 02.01.2010 to the petitioner stating that, as he had already deposited Rs. 8,49,230/- out of the total amount of Rs. 18,47,316/- swindled from the Sector 26 and the Burail Branches of the Bank, determined by the inspection team as per its final reports dated 22.09.2009 and 22.12.2009, he was required to deposit the remaining Rs. 9,98,086/- within 7 days. By his reply dated 07.01.2010, the petitioner stated that he did not know anything about the deposit of Rs. 8,49,230/- and asked for copies of the final reports along with the vouchers and other documents relied upon therein. He followed up with a reminder on 24.03.2010.