RAMPAL CHOUHAN Vs. MARWAR GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22. 07. 2003 dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) THE appellant was dismissed from service under the provisions of Regulations 30 (1) (f) of the Marwar Gramin Bank (Staff) Services Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1980) having been found guilty of the charge of misconduct leveled against him while he was posted at Sarnau Branch of the respondent Marwar Gramin Bank in District, Jalore. A complaint came to be filed by some of the loanees against him alleging inter alia that he demanded bribe for providing them relief under the Agricultural Rural Bank Relief Regulations. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by Shanti Lal Sharma, who recorded the statements of the Manager, Field Supervisor and other staff members and also recorded the statements of the complainants. After conducting the preliminary enquiry, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Regulation 30 of the Regulations of 1980. THE appellant was served with a memorandum dated 6. 9. 91 whereby he was informed that enquiry is proposed against him on the charges set out in the statement of charges and explained in the statement of allegations. THE charges against the appellant set out are as follows:- " Charge No. 1 That the petitioner demanded Rs. 100/- from one Narsi as bribe for closing his account and he told the loanees to give money and take the deposit receipts later on and because of not giving of receipts by him, the loanees did not deposit the money in the Bank and therefore, he did not watch the interest of the Bank and thus, he violated Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980. Charge No. 2 That the petitioner did not give correct information to Ganesha and Mohanlal in respect of their accounts and he harassed the loanees and by not giving correct information to the loanees and harassing the loanees, he violated Circular dated 27. 7. 1981 and further, he collected Rs. 232. 65 more from Mohanlal as bribe and thus, he violated Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980. Charge No. 3 That the petitioner demanded Rs. 200/- as bribe from one Karmi and further, the petitioner was given Rs. 1400/- towards loan amount by Karmi, but the petitioner did not deposit that money in the bank and kept that amount with him unauthorisedly and thus, he did not deposit the amount received from the loanees in the Bank and thus, violated the Circular dated 18. 2. 1984 and further by demanding bribe and keeping the recovered amount towards loan with him, he violated the provisions of Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980. Charge No. 4 That similarly, the petitioner also demanded bribe from Teja and further, he took Rs. 1300/- from Teja, but did not deposit that money in the bank and kept that amount with him unauthorisedly and therefore, he violated the instructions contained in the circulars dated 27. 7. 1981 and 12. 2. 1984 and also violated the provisions of Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980. Charge No. 5 That the petitioner did not give correct information to the loanees in respect of balance and already deposited loan amount and he harassed the loanees and also gave wrong information to them and thus, he lowered down the image of the Bank. Charge No. 6 That on 25. 10. 1990, he was Cashier and cash book was not closed by him on that day and though the amount was actually received on 26. 10. 1990, but he issued the receipts in the date of 25. 10. 1990 and thus, violated the instructions contained in Circular dated 18. 2. 1984. Charge No. 7 That on the vouchers dated 25. 10. 1990, the petitioners did not mention the description of notes. "

(3.) ANOTHER case relied upon by the learned counsel is Rai Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Bhola Nath Singh & Ors. (7 ). In the said case the employee did not participate in the enquiry. As such the proceedings were conducted ex parte. The Court held that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court does not act as an appellate authority, but exercises within limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. In the said case no such error was pointed out. This case in fact supports the case of the appellant inasmuch as the procedural error leading to manifest injustice has been pointed out inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the statements of the witnesses in recording findings against the appellant irrespective of the fact that the witnesses had no courage to face the cross examination. ANOTHER case on which reliance has been placed is Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority & Ors.