SANTOSH KUMAR PASWAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the enquiry report dtd. 30/11/2016 issued by the Chief Manager (Enquiry), the order dtd. 31/1/2017 passed by the Regional Manager and Disciplinary Authority, RBO, Madhubani and the appellate order dtd. 6/5/2017 passed by the Deputy General Manager (B and O) and the Appellate Authority, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

(2.) The petitioner had joined the service in the year 2009, was posted as an Assistant at Dagmara Branch of the State Bank of India and, soon thereafter, he was transferred to Nirmali Branch but his I.D. was not activated to work on CBS Platform. Even after several requests, the I.D. of the petitioner was not activated but, later on, the petitioner was again transferred to the Dagmara Branch of the Bank where his I.D. was activated. The petitioner was assigned the job of cash in-charge, having claimed by the petitioner that he had no experience either of working on CBS platform or on the job of Cash In-charge. As has been claimed by the petitioner that the Branch was very active branch whereas the system was not functioning properly as the system was very slow and several function key such as F-7, F-10 which were meant for identification of the name of customer was not functioning properly but, even after his repeated requests, the fault was not corrected. On that account, he had to make payment/receipt only on the basis of old teller system or else face the wrath of the customers. While he was performing as a clerical job, the First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner being Kunaili P.S. Case No. 24 of 2016 for offence under Ss. 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. which was lodged on a complainant made by the Branch Manager, SBI, Dagmara vide application dtd. 19/5/2016 wherein an allegation has been made that one Mukesh Singh and Beena Devi who were/are the account holders being A/c No. 3084294439 and A/c No. 11894461881 respectively that from their account, Rs.26,000.00 and 20,000/- respectively have been debited by Santosh Kumar Paswan, whereby, he had committed criminal act by withdrawing money from the account of two customers illegally. The petitioner was put behind the bar, ultimately he was released on the strength of the order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29856 of 2016 and, after his release from the confinement, the petitioner was sought an explanation with respect to nine imputations basically withdrawal of money from the account of Mukesh Singh and Beena Devi as well as he had operated the bank account of Rajnish Kumar and Pawan Kumar with their fake signatures respectively as it does not tally with their recorded signature. The petitioner filed explanation dtd. 28/6/2016 where he has not denied the incident the manner the money was transferred from the account of Mukesh Singh and Veena Singh but, has given an explanation that by mistake he has pressed the F-12 button and the amount was debited from the account of Mukesh Singh. In a similar manner also, the money was debited from the account of Bina Devi by committing mistake of pressing the F-12 button and tendered his apology having stated that he has not caused any loss to the Bank, whereafter, a formal charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner vide letter dtd. 18/8/2016 which reads as follows:-

(3.) Thereafter, he was also asked to file explanation which he filed reiterating the same stand what he had taken earlier in his reply dtd. 27/8/2016. The enquiry was conducted and concluded in which the petitioner participated along with his defence representative, also it appears, at the end of the enquiry, the petitioner was asked to file written defence which he could not do on account of the fact that the person who was representing the petitioner in the enquiry proceeding was busy on account of demonetization. From the enquiry report, it shows that altogether 23 documents of the bank has been marked as exhibits and three documents on behalf of the petitioner have also been marked. The enquiry officer considered the evidence on record and found all the charges proved which reads as follows:-