SHEIKH MUSHTAQ AHMED Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this petition, petitioner Sheikh Mushtaq Ahmed, who is a bank employee holding the post of cashier -cum -clerk in the UCO Bank, Srinagar has challenged the penalty of discharge from service imposed on him on the charge of grave misconduct.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the purpose of present petition are as under: A Saving Bank Account No. 19693 was opened with the UCO Bank Srinagar by one Sheikh Shabnam Qayoom with a deposit of Rs. 600/ - on 15.12.1994. From 22.12.1994 to 6.3.1995 some more deposits were made in the said account by the account holder. On 29.11.2000 a cheque book was shown to have been issued to the said account holder and on 19.12.2000 a cheque for Rs. 2.20 lacs out of the said cheque book was shown to have been drawn on the said Saving Bank Account. On 27.6.2001 Sheikh Shabnam Qayoom, the account holder filed a complaint denying obtaining of cheque book or withdrawal of the amount. Accordingly a FIR was lodged with Police Station, Maisuma by the Bank under FIR No. 65/2001 on 30.6.2001. On investigation by the police the petitioner has not been found involved in the matter and no challan has been filed against him but during preliminary enquiry, the petitioner in the departmental proceedings conducted by the respondent bank, who was working in the said bank on the relevant date as cashier -cum -clerk was placed under suspension on 27.11.2001and on 21.1.2002 a charge sheet was issued against him alleging taking of the delivery of the cheque book and defrauding the bank by withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 2.20 lacs. The petitioner replied the charge sheet on 8.2.2002. Thereafter a regular enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found involved in the affair, as such, penalty of discharge from service was imposed on him. He filed an appeal against the said order. The appellate authority (Dy. General Manager) reversed the order so far it related to charge of receiving of cheque book as the same was found as not proved but maintained the charge of alleged withdrawal of money by the petitioner after returning a finding that the said charge was proved against the petitioner. The authorities imposed on the petitioner penalty of discharge from service with all superannuation benefits.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of imposition of penalty on him on various grounds inter -alia that the respondents have while directing the enquiry against the petitioner not complied with various provisions of Bipartite Settlement particularly its para 19.4. The petitioner further alleges that while conducting the enquiry the enquiry officer has not provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to contest the enquiry and has relied on evidence which was otherwise not admissible under law at all. He has further stated that during the period of suspension he was not paid the full pay and allowances, as were admissible to him under the rules as such he could not properly defend the enquiry. Various other grounds have also been raised to contest the enquiry report and the findings therein.