MRITYUNJAY JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the appellant was working as an assistant of the Madhubani Branch of the respondent Co - operative Bank, a charge - sheet was issued to him. In the charge - sheet dated 11th June, 1994 it was alleged, amongst others, that the request for waiver of loan made by a few customer - Cooperative Societies of the respondent - Cooperative Bank, was pending consideration by the State Government and NABARD, but before a final decision in that regard could be taken, the appellant and some other officers of the respondent - Cooperative Bank caused the amount of waiver to reach those customer - Cooperative Societies in cash. It was alleged that in the matter of making those waiver amounts available, the appellant while debited the Head Office of the Co - operative Bank in the ledger of the Madhubani Branch of the Co -operative Bank, he credited the same in the respective savings bank accounts of the customer -Cooperative Societies. In sum and substance, it was alleged that those customer -Cooperative Societies were creditors of the Bank to the extent of the amount of loan for which waiver was sought and though the Co -operative Bank did not get any reimbursement on their count either from the State Government or NABARD, the waiver as was claimed by the customer -Cooperative Societies was not only made available to them, but while doing so, their liability towards the bank was not reduced, instead by giving credit in their savings bank account, the liability of the bank was increased towards them which was adjusted by increasing the liability of the Head Office of the Co - operative Bank. The appellant while replying to the charge -sheet accepted in toto the ingredients of the said charge, but purported to contend that he acted on the basis of directions of the then Managing Director of the Co -operative Bank. While, however, doing so, he did not indicate that the Head Office directed the matter to be dealt with in the manner, the same was dealt with in the ledger of Madhubani Branch of the respondent -Co -operative Bank. In reply, two additional informations were supplied; one was that the same procedure was adopted by the predecessor of the appellant and that immediately after making the entries in the ledger, advice had been sent to the Head Office.

(2.) The Enquiry Officer having regard to such reply to the charge -sheet did not propose to hold fullfledged inquiry, instead he opined in a report dated 18th February, 1995 that in relation to making available the amounts of waiver to those customer -Cooperative Societies, the appellant acted in an illegal manner. In the meantime, it appears that on 19th January, 1995, although there was no requirement of law to do so, a second show cause notice was issued, whereby and whereunder it was stated that upon consideration of the reply given to the charge -sheet and by looking into the matter, it appears that the appellant is guilty of gross misconduct which may result in even an order of dismissal. The appellant was given time until 27th January, 1995 to make representation in respect of the said notice dated 19th January, 1995. Admittedly, the appellant did not react to the said notice.

(3.) ON 28th February, 1995 once again a notice was given to the appellant by the Managing Director of the respondent -Co - operative Bank asking him to produce witnesses and other evidence on 27th February, 1995 in respect of the charges levelled against him, if the appellant so desires. This notice was replied by the appellant by a letter dated 15th March, 1995, but in this letter the appellant did not exercise his option to produce witnesses or other evidence on 27th February, 1995 or on any other date.