RAMESH CHANDRA BRANWAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of the disciplinary authority (respondent No. 3), Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Patna Zonal Office, dated the 10th December, 1986 (Annexure-3), whereby the petitioner has been removed from sevice. On appeal, Deputy General Manager of the Central Bank of India (respondent No. 2), affirmed the said order on 16th July, 1988 (Annexure-9). THE petitioner has further challenged the proceeding held during the inquiry and has prayed for reinstatement to the post he held along with the consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner entered the Bank's service in the year 1959 and was promoted to the Office Grade as Sub-Accountant in March, 1971. He worked as Branch Manager first at Bikramganj and thereafter at the Fraser Road Branch, Patna. In the year 1979, he was promoted as Deputy Chief Officer and then posted as Branch Manager at the Birla Mandir Road Branch in Patna. In March, 1984, he was transferred to the Sasaram Branch in place of Shri Makardhwaj Tripathi. Having learnt about several irregularities and unmanagable advanced at Sasaram Branch the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to join there and represented before the Management for his posting at some other than Sasaram Branch. THE petitioner joined the Sasaram Branch in August, 1984, and soon thereafter he represented before the Assistant General Manager Patna Regional Office for his mutual transfer to the Sakchi Branch at Jamshedpur. After joining the Sasararn Branch, the petitioner brought to the notice of the higher authorities, of the Bank, including the Assistant General Manager an the Regional Manager, Patna, about the irregularities and unmangeable advances of the Sasaram Branch made by Shri Tripathi which caused annoyance to Shri Tripathi and he became revengeful towards the petitioner. Apprehending that some action might be taken against Shri Tripathi, he started reporting to the Regional Manager that the petitioner had issued some Bank guarantees without maintaining any record in the Bank, although the petitioner had maintained proper record, register and files relating to the Bank guarantees but they were either concealed or removed from the Branch with a view to falsely implicate the petitioner.

(3.) TO these articles of charges contained in the memo dated 19-2-1986, the petitioner submitted his reply on 13th March, 1986.