PREM NARAYAN SRIVASTAVA Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner, Prem Narayan Srivastava working as Head Cashier -E, was placed under suspension and was chargesheeted, as many as 11. charges were levelled against him. The charges were in relation to his misdemeanor, misdeeds and misconducts. The petitioner after service of the chargesheet submitted his show cause and took part in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer gave proper opportunities to the parties and submitted his report on 27.12.2000 finding that some of the charges were proved and some were not proved. After receiving the enquiry report the disciplinary authority showing its concurrence with the enquiry report issued second show cause notice alongwith the enquiry report to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his show cause and submitted that the enquiry report was lopsided, the findings were perverse and were contrary to the records available with the Enquiry Officer. The defence and the arguments of the petitioner did not find favour with the disciplinary authority who vide his order dated 2.5.2001 contained in Annexure - 7 dismissed the petitioner from service under clause 19.6(a) of the Bipartite Settlement amended up -to -date. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said punishment submitted his appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide its order dated 10th January, 2002 (Annexure -8) concurred with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority but however modified his dismissal into discharge from sevice with superannuation benefits as would be due otherewise at that stage and without disqualification from future employment.

(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the Respondents -Establishment submitted that a perusal of the charges would clearly show that the petitioner was acting in most unfair manner, he was destroying the accounts of the Bank and in fact was indulged in misconducting himself. It was submitted by him that the charges are not simple but are of grave nature. Referring to the charges he submitted that the petitioner, in fact, destroyed the vouchers, made bogus and fraudulent entries in the accounts book and made certain subsequent entries to cover his lapses.