RANJAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI RADHA KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER CORPORATION BANK (PERSONAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION) HEAD OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.05.2002 whereby and where under punishment of dismissal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner apart from a direction to recover a sum of Rs. 3,08,000/- from the petitioner herein. Consequently, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 26.11.2002.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a charge-sheet dated 12.03.1999 was served on the petitioner, basically, regarding the charge of defalcation of a sum of Rs. 3,08,000/- by hatching a conspiracy and diverting the cheques of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited into another bank account and from the said account, one Rajeev Kumar is said to have withdrawn a sum of Rs. 3.08 lakhs. The Inquiry Officer had conducted the inquiry and examined four witnesses including the said Rajeev Kumar, who is said to have withdrawn the money from the bank account. The inquiry officer by his inquiry report dated 20.12.2001 has found all the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been conclusively proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 13.02.2002 was served on the petitioner and upon considering his reply, the disciplinary authority has passed an order of punishment dated 13.05.2002, inflicting punishment of dismissal from service qua the petitioner herein and has further directed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3.08 lakhs from the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly, a bare perusal of the entire inquiry report would show that no evidence whatsoever has come to conclusively show that it was the petitioner who had committed forgery resulting in withdrawal of money by the said Rajeev Kumar and merely, on the basis of hypothesis and evidence of the witnesses regarding hatching of conspiracy, the inquiry officer has proceeded to hold the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been conclusively proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the deposition of the said Rajeev Kumar, who surprisingly was withheld by the prosecution, but his statement was recorded by the Regional Manager, Patna wherein he had declined to name the petitioner as the person, who had asked him to withdraw the money from the bank account. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the cross-examination of the said Rajeev Kumar, which has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition and submitted that the said Rajeev Kumar upon being asked to state as to who had engaged him for withdrawing the money, had disclosed that one Ashok Ghosh had engaged him on a monthly salary of Rs. 500/-. In fact, even the said Rajeev Kumar had nowhere, either in his deposition or in his cross-examination, named the petitioner as the person, who was instrumental in the aforesaid fraudulent transactions. It has been further submitted that for the same and similar allegation a police case was also lodged vide Gandhi Maidan P.S. No. 272 of 1997 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the I.P.C. and in the trial of the said case, five witnesses were examined out of which four witnesses are same as those who have been examined in the present departmental proceeding and they have deposed in the criminal trial in similar manner, as they have deposed in the present departmental proceeding. It is further submitted that the judgment of the trial court dated 28.02.2015 would show that the facts of the present case, the charges levelled in the present case as also the criminal proceeding and the witnesses adduced in the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceedings are same and similar and no distinction can be drawn, hence, it is submitted that since the petitioner and the said Rajeev Kumar have been acquitted by the learned trial court by a judgment dated 28.02.2015 passed in Trial No. 1785 of 2015 (arising out of Gandhi Maidan P.S. No. 242 of 1997), the petitioner herein should also be acquitted in the present disciplinary proceedings.