G.R. NAGAR, CLERK-CUM-CASHIER-GODOWN KEEPER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SAFIDON, DISTT. JIND (HARYANA) Vs. DY. GENERAL MANAGER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order of suspension on the petitioner that stood modified on 02.07.1988 passed by the respondents imposing stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. The enquiry officer's report itself is not filed by the petitioner but the petitioner took up legal challenges to the validity of the report and the ultimate finding of guilt by the disciplinary authority and to the punishment imposed upon him.

(2.) The petitioner was a Clerk-cum-Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper in Punjab National Bank and he was served with a charge-sheet on 21.5.1985 imputing allegations of misappropriation in connivance with the Superior Officer in the manner of disbursement of some loans for farmers under a scheme for purchase of buffaloes. The charges were that the suppliers of the cattle were fictitious and that some of the account holders themselves, were not eligible for the loan. Two of the alleged borrowers were fictitious. The loan transaction was said to be under a subsidy scheme and the subsidies were literally appropriated by the petitioner himself. Preparatory to allowing of charge-sheet, a preliminary enquiry had been conducted by the very same Enquiry Officer, who was subsequently appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had sought for the preliminary enquiry and had also objected to the fact that the Enquiry officer was prejudiced by the fact that he was already involved in collecting evidence against him. The Enquiry Officer, however, found him guilty and it was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and visited him with removal from service. In an intra-departmental appeal filed by the petitioner, although the findings were affirmed, the Appellate Authority reduced the charge from removal from service to one of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect.

(3.) The petitioner's objection to the validity of the enquiry was (i) the preliminary enquiry report which was the basis for allowing of charge-sheet had not been supplied to him and therefore, there was gross prejudice; (ii) the officer that conducted the preliminary enquiry was himself the Enquiry Officer and therefore, he was himself the prosecutor as well as the judge, there was a violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) there, was no misappropriation at all, for, the persons, who were borrowers were real persons against whom even suits for recovery had been filed subsequently for non-payment and decrees had been obtained. If they were fictitious, suits of recovery could not have been filed; (iv) no misuse of authority was made, for all the suppliers or sellers of cattle were only known to him since he belonged to a small village and the fact of his acquaintance ought not to be taken as an incidence of misappropriation; and (v) the Superior Officer, who was a sanctioning authority had been exonerated but he had been merely made a scapegoat in finding him guilty and visiting him with penalty.