ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents -State Bank of India.

(2.) BY virtue of order dated 7.4.2003, contained in Annexure -11 to the writ application two orders of punishment have been passed against the petitioner. The punishments are dismissal without notice in terms of paragraph 521(5)(a) of Shastri Award as retained by the Desai Award and subsequent modifications thereafter vide memorandum of settlement dated 10.4.2002. The other punishment was that the petitioner would not get the benefit of any other payment for the period he was under suspension. Petitioner was working as a Cashier -cum -Assistant, S.B.I., Dhaka Branch, East Champaran, District -Motihari. While working in that position petitioner is supposed to have committed certain fraudulent acts of illegal withdrawals from accounts of certain account holders of the Branch. Based on a complaint received from one account holder, matter was enquired into and the authorities decided in their wisdom to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Charge -sheet thereafter came to be issued to him listing out the charges as contained in Annexure - 7. Reading of the charges related to certain dishonest act which the petitioner committed in the three accounts which are indicated in the charge -sheet. An enquiry was held and charges came to be proved against the petitioner, it is significant to note that in the enquiry petitioner accepted the charges as such but he tried to explain it in a way that these were lapses because of the pressure of work in the Branch. The court has gone through the findings which have been given in the enquiry report. The explanation offered by the petitioner has been considered by the Enquiry Officer but then from the evidence which has come, the present case does not seem to be of the kind where these omissions have happened because of the pressure of work. There has been deliberate actions which have been taken by the petitioner in manipulating the accounts of the account holders. There was effort on his part to not acknowledge a sum of Rs. 20,000 deposited by account holder despite receipt in this regard having been issued by the Branch.

(3.) BASED on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority issued him a second show cause, considered his explanation which was offered in person and thereafter decided to impose the punishment in question. The punishment has been upheld by the appellate authority looking at the evidence, findings and the conduct of the petitioner.