SUKHLAL SINGH Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as SCA (Clerk assigned with Special Assistant Duties) with respondent -Bank has filed this writ petition praying for setting aside the order dated 26.05.2012 (Annexure P -9) whereby he has been ordered to be dismissed from service. He has also challenged order dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure P - 10), whereby, his appeal against the order of dismissal has been rejected.

(2.) ONE Ved Prakash, who had saving Bank Account No. 15688 in the YMCA Branch, Faridabad of the respondent -Bank submitted an application to the Manager of the Bank stating that he had come to the Bank on 14.07.2010 to withdraw money from his account, and he came to know that Rs. 30,000/ - had been withdrawn from his account on 13.07.2010. He stated that he had withdrawn Rs. 2,000/ - on 17.06.2010. He requested that error in the account be rectified. On this information, the Branch Manager called for the vouchers of the preceding dates, but he could not locate the particular withdrawal slip relating to withdrawal of this amount. He informed the Senior Manager and on going through the print out of the entries of that date, it was noticed that the withdrawal slip was debited by Sh. A.K. Setia and passed by the petitioner. Mr. Setia informed that as per instructions of the petitioner the withdrawal slip was passed without the pass -book and Ramesh Kumar, Cashier informed that the cash was taken by the petitioner. The petitioner happened to be on leave on that day. When he came to the Bank the next day, he was informed about the incident. After some time, he was able to trace out the withdrawal slip. As the explanation of the petitioner regarding his permitting the passing of the withdrawal slip without the accompanying pass -book and as to why he had collected the cash, was supposedly not found satisfactorily, the petitioner was directed to pay the amount to the complainant, which he did. Stating that it was not a usual transaction, a preliminary enquiry in the matter was referred to the Investigating Officer of the Bank vide letter dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure P -1/A). The Investigating Officer in his report dated 14.08.2010 (Annexure P -2), observed that the petitioner had permitted passing of withdrawal slip without pass -book and taken cash amounting to Rs. 30,000/ - on behalf of the customer and concluded that the petitioner is primarily responsible for the alleged fraud. The petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner on 17.09.2011 (Annexure P -5), wherein the main allegation based on the representation dated 14.07.2010 of Sh. Ved Prakash was that an amount of Rs. 30,000/ - had been withdrawn from his Saving Bank Account on 13.07.2010, but as per his statement, he had neither come to the Branch nor given any withdrawal slip to anyone for withdrawal of the said amount. An amended charge -sheet was issued on 27.09.2011 (Annexure P -6), which contains the following articles of charge:

(3.) THE Enquiry Officer however did not accept the contention that the complaint was made against the petitioner by the Account Holder on account of sudden confusion and memory loss. He held that it is proved that the petitioner had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - from the Saving Bank Account No. 15688 of Sh. Ved Prakash through a withdrawal slip that had been obtained earlier by him and that he retained the amount without handing it over to the customer. He concluded that it was clearly established during the course of the enquiry that the account holder was very well known to the petitioner and he often used to approach the petitioner for his banking needs. Hence, Charge No. 1 was proved. Similarly, Charge No. 2 relating to having hidden the paid withdrawal slip in order to conceal the fraud was also held proved. Regarding charge No. 3, it was concluded that it was partly proved to the extent that the petitioner had remitted the amount of Rs. 30,000/ - to the customer but the part regarding acceptance of misappropriation by the petitioner was held not proved. Thus, two charges were proved and one charge regarding misappropriation was partly proved. It was concluded that the petitioner had acted with gross negligence and in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank under Clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement between the Bank and its workman. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued notice to the petitioner regarding personal hearing and proposed punishment of dismissal and vide order 26.05.2012, the punishment of dismissal was imposed.