UTPAL SARKAR Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order of punishment dated 20th March, 1995 issued under the signature of the Disciplinary Authority by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service as also against the appellate order dated 20th September, 1995 passed by the appellate authority affirming the said order. In this writ petition the petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding on the basis of various charges. At the relevant point of time when the petitioner was proceeded against he was functioning as the Branch Manager of Sukhashan Branch. The charges on the basis of which the petitioner was proceeded against are set out below: ''Charge No.1 Sri Sarkar while working as Sub -Acctt. at Birpur branch fraudulently withdrew Rs. 1,000/ -on 18.11.89 from his own HSS A/C and adjusted the debit balance arisen out of the said withdrawal by depositing the amount of Rs. 1,000/ - on 15.01.90 with malafide intention of caring up the fraudulent withdrawal and thus temporarily misappropriated the amount. Charge No.2: -Sri Sarkar while working as Branch Manager Sukhasan branch fraudulently withdrew Rs. 39,144/ - from his HSS A/C on different dates and defrauded the bank for the said amount. Charge No.3 : - Sri Sarkar, while working as BM, Sukhasan branch inflated the balance of his HSS/C 115 on different dates with malafide intention of deriving undue pecuniary gain out of inflated balance. Charge No. 4 : -Sri Sarkar, while working as BM, Sukhasan branch withdrew fraudulently from different HSS A/cs by making fictitious credit entries therein and destroyed the withdrawals and struck out credit and debit entries with malafide intention of removing the evidence and to suppress the fraudulent withdrawals respectively and thereby defrauded the Bank for Rs. 18,000/ -. Charge No.5: -Sri Sarkar while working as BM, Sukhasan branch forged the thumb impression on withdrawal slip and withdrew Rs. 5,000/ - from HSS A/c of the illiterate account holder and thus defrauded the bank for Rs. 5000/ -. Charge No. 6 -Sri Sarkar while working as BM, Sukhasan branch' availed advance against TA bill amounting to Rs. 9,000/ - unauthorised -ly and did not made the entries in the C/D Nominal ledger a/c advance against TA bill with malafide intention of concealing the advance from higher authorities. Charge No. 7: - Sri Sarkar while working as BM, Sukhasan branch cheated the bank for Rs. 2,000/ - by discounting bogus withdrawal drawn by him on Ballyganj (Calcutta) branch. Charge No. 8. -Sri Sarkar while working as BM, Sukhasan branch defrauded the Bank for Rs. 2,000/ - by discounting the withdrawal slip drawn by him on Ballayganj (Calcutta) without maintaining the balance in the a/c on which the withdrawal slip was drawn and thereby defrauded the bank for Rs. 2,000/ -. Charge No. 9: -Sri Sarkar while working as BM, Sukhasan branch made fictitious entry of Rs. 5,000/ - in the HSS A/c No.3 as well as in relative passbook in the name of Sri JN Chaudhari with malafide intention of defrauding the Bank for the same amount. Charge No. 10: - Sri Sarkar while working as BM of Shahpur branch withdrew fraudulently Rs. 5,200/ - on different dates from his HSS A/c No. 434 and defrauded the bank for the same amount. Charge No. 11: - Sri Sarkar reported falsely position of balancing of books of HSS ledgers of Sukhasan branch to mislead the higher authorities of the bank and to conceal the fraudulent withdrawals made by him as have been elaborately exemplified in the charge no. 2 to 9 hereabove. ''

(3.) THIS Court has considered all these objections. So far as the first objection is concerned, the petitioner is right that in the charge sheet no list of witnesses was appended nor the list of documents was disclosed. But that will not in any way vitiate the proceeding. The petitioner in the proceeding has been given an opportunity to defend his case. If the petitioner was not given any opportunity the proceeding could have been quashed. In order to have the proceeding quashed the petitioner must show before this Court that sufficient opportunity of defence was not given to him. That the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before the Court. So mere non -mentioning the name of the witnesses in the charge sheet does not amount to denial of reasonable opportunity of defence of the petitioner. So there is no substance in the first point.