RABINDRA NATH THAKUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.1.1989 passed by the Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Calcutta (respondent No. 3) imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of reduction to a lower scale in time scale by three stages. Against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal and the said appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority. Both the original and the appellate orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) The enquiry against the petitioner was held in respect of the following charges: You are working as Manager, Scale I at our Bagoura Branch since 3.10.1986. You were previously working at our Divisional Office, Patna as an Accountant. While so working at Divisional Office, Patna you were deputed to our Manganpur Branch to officiate as Manager during the period commencing from 16.2.1985 to 10.12.1985. During the period of deputation, you were permitted to stay at and operated from Hajipur to Manganpur. You have submitted a T.A. Bill dated 2.5.1986 to the Bills Section Personnel Wing, Head Office, Bangalore, claiming a total sum of Rs. 39,498.10 (Rupees thirty nine thousand, four hundred ninety eight and paise ten only) towards fare, boarding and lodging expenses and halting allowance. Out of the above amount, you have claimed a sum of Rs. 29,766.70 towards boarding and lodging expenses supported by hotel bills. The details of hotel bills submitted by you are more fully described in the statement of imputations to this articles of charge. The investigations conducted to verify the genuineness of the hotel bills have revealed that you did not stay in the hotel at Hajipur, but stayed at and operated from Patna. The hotel bills submitted by you are false, fabricated and obtained through unfair means in active connivance of the hotel authorities. You have by producing the aforesaid hotel bills, made/attempted to make a false claim against the Bank with an ulterior motive of deriving pecuniary benefits for yourself and to cause wrongful loss to the Bank. By your above action in preferring a false claim, you have failed to perform your duties with honesty and integrity, devotion and diligence and have acted in a manner which is most unbecoming of an Officer of the Bank. You have, thus contravened Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and thereby committed misconduct punishable under the provisions of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

(3.) Against such charges the petitioner filed his written statement denying the charges. Thereafter an enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer in his report held the petitioner guilty of the charges and thereupon the aforesaid penalty was imposed.