RANBIR SINGH Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Ranbir Singh son of Shri Zile Singh was a Clerk-cum- Cashier in Bank of India. He has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the report dated 20.6.1996 and the order dated 14.11.1996 passed by the respondents vide which he was dismissed from the service be quashed. It has also been prayed by the petitioner that the order dated 31.1.1997 vide which his appeal was dismissed be also quashed. Further, a prayer was made by the petitioner that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to take back him in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he joined the service of the respondent-Bank on 27.9.1983 as temporary employee. He was promoted to the clerical cadre on 4.4.1994. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Staff Regulations, besides Sastry Award and Bipartite Settlement. On 26.10.1995 he was issued with a charge sheet for alleged misconduct relating to the purported transaction of March, 1992 and 6.6.1993. The charges were that he has collected Rs. 5,200/- from one Parkash Singh who was loanee and out of the same misappropriated certain amount and issued false counter-foil of pay-in-slip. The petitioner gave the reply to the charge sheet. Inquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner. The finding of the inquiry has gone against the petitioner. Show cause notice was given to the petitioner to which he gave his explanation, but the same was not accepted and the impugned order of dismissal from service was passed. The petitioner also filed an appeal which was illegally dismissed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the charges with regard to the embezzlement are false. It is not proved before the Inquiry officer that there was any entrustment of Rs. 5,200/-. The alleged deposit of Rs. 4,000/- on 9.5.1995 and Rs. 400/- subsequently by the petitioner in the loan account of Parkash Singh is incorrect. The inquiry as based on no evidence. There was hardly any proof before the Inquiry officer with regard to the embezzlement of Rs. 4,400/- by the petitioner. The preliminary inquiry conducted in this case is on the back of the petitioner. The defence of the petitioner has not rightly been considered by the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction and the petitioner is liable to be reinstated into service.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. The respondents took preliminary objections that Parkash Singh was granted a loan of Rs. 5,000/- by the respondent-Bank on 18.3.1992 and he used to remit the repayment of his loan through the petitioner, who was then posted at Model Town Branch, Ludhiana as Staff Subordinate. According to Parkash Singh, he remitted a total amount of Rs. 5,200/- on various occasions through the petitioner. The petitioner, however, deposited only Rs. 500/- on 19.6.1992 and Rs. 300/- on 13.10.1992 in the loan account of Parkash Singh and misappropriated the amount of Rs. 4,400/-, which was entrusted to him for depositing in the loan account of Parkash Singh. The petitioner issued false counter-foils of pay-in-slips for Rs. 100/- dated nil, Rs. 200/- dated 7/92 and Rs. 500/- dated 6.6.1993 to Parkash Singh for his satisfaction though no such amount was deposited by the petitioner in the loan account of said Parkash Singh. Subsequently, on knowing that the bank came to know the fact of the aforesaid misappropriation, the petitioner arranged to deposit Rs. 4,000/- in cash on 9.5.1995 and Rs. 400/- in cash in the loan account subsequently. A departmental inquiry was instituted after issuing a charge sheet vide order dated 26.10.1995 and subsequently Inquiry Officer was appointed. He held a fair and impartial inquiry. The petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to fully participate in the inquiry. He led his defence and on receipt of the finding of the Inquiry Officer the disciplinary authority concurred with the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer. It furnished a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner, who made representation to the show cause notice vide which penalty of dismissal was proposed. Personal hearing was also given to the petitioner. During the course of inquiry the petitioner made his oral/written submissions. The punishing authority after going through the entire record passed the final order by confirming the proposed punishment of dismissal. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 31.1.1997. Before the Appellate Authority also personal hearing was given to the petitioner. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order and the written petition is without any merit. With this defence the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.