ZAHIRUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking exception to an order passed by the learned Writ Court on 24.06.2014 in C.W.J.C. No. 5829 of 2008, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) Records indicate that the appellant herein was working in the State Bank of India at the relevant time after his appointment as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the year 1986. He was placed under suspension on 01.08.1995 and thereafter a charge memo was issued to him on 15.09.1999 imputing 9 allegations with regard to various irregularities and misconducts committed by him during the period 1994-95. In all, nine imputation of misconducts were levelled against him and these misconduct levelled pertain to making improper withdrawal from Savings Bank Account fraudulently, making credit entries in Savings Bank Account and various acts of commission and omission in dealing with Savings Bank Account of various accountholders. In the departmental inquiry conducted, out of the 9 charges, Charges No. 1,3,5 and 9 were found to be partly proved and charges No. 2,4,6, 7 and 8 were not found as proved. Charge No. 1 pertain to withdrawal of Rs. 25,000/- from the Savings Bank Account of one Smt. Basanti Kumari and thereafter not posting the said withdrawal in the said account and also permitting the withdrawal in a fraudulent manner inspite of there being no sufficient balance. This act was found to be misappropriation of the entire amount and exposing the bank for financial loss. Charge No. 3 again pertains to withdrawal from a Savings Bank Account of one Brijlal Harijan to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- but instead of showing the entry as Rs. 16,000/- it was shown in a different manner. Similarly, Charge No. 5 also pertains to four withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from the Savings Bank Account of one Smt. Arpati Devi and Charge No. 9 was with regard to withdrawal of Rs. 3,000/- from the account of one Devi Prasad Singh and overdrawal of certain amount from the account.

(3.) Initially after conducting an inquiry, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. However, on a writ petition being filed before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 12645 of 2002 the learned Writ Court came to the conclusion that the dismissal seems to be harsh and excessive and remanded the matter back for reconsideration. After reconsideration, the punishment was converted to one of discharge from service under Paragraph 521(5)(e) of the Sastry Award and challenging the said punishment and further contending that this punishment is also too harsh and in the order passed no reason is given for imposing this punishment also, the writ petition was filed. The Writ Court found that now keeping in view the nature of allegations made and the action taken by the disciplinary authority, no further indulgence into the matter is called for. Finding not infirmity the writ petition was dismissed and now, this appeal is filed contending that reconsideration with regard to imposition of punishment has not been properly made.