SURENDRA PRASAD SAH Vs. VEISHALI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the Bank.

(2.) THE petitioner who is an employee of the Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur which has now been merged into Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 6.7.1988, Annexure -2 whereunder after completion of the departmental proceeding he has been inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments in the time scale. He has also assailed the appellate order dated 14.10.1988, annexure 3 whereunder his appeal has been dismissed and the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority has bean upheld. He is further aggrieved by the order dated 1st April, 2000, annexure 5 whereunder the appellate authority even refused to review the earlier order dated 14.10.1988 annexure 3 on the ground of acquittal of the petitioner in the substantive criminal trial taken for the offence under Secs. 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 409, 466/34 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of Hardao Sah who is said to have been duped by the petitioner by opening fictitious loan account.

(3.) ONE of the loanee, namely, Hardeo Sah lodged criminal prosecution against the petitioner for opening of the fictitious loan account under Sections 406,409,420,467,468,409,466/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution launched against the petitioner ended in acquittal as would appear from the judgment dated 28.2.1995, passed in GR No. 416/87/Tr No. 43/95 which is contained in annexure 4 to this application. After being acquitted in the aforesaid criminal trial the petitioner again approached the Board of Directors of the bank to review the punishment order which request was considered by the Board of Directors which again declined to interfere with the punishment order in favour of the petitioner on the ground of acquittal in the trial. The order of the Board of Directors was communicated to the petitioner under letter No. 407 dated 1.4.2000 which is contained in annexure 5 to this application. Perusal of the aforesaid communication dated 1.4.2000 annexure 5 also does not indicate that the Board of Directors recorded any reasons in support of their order not to interfere with the punishment order imposed on the ground of acquittal recorded by the trial court under judgment dated 28.2.2005, annexure 4. The petitioner thereafter has approached this Court by filing the writ petition.