MISHRILAL MEENA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 10/8/2001 passed by the respondent-Bank whereby, while dismissing the review petition filed by Shri Mishrilal Meena-the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners (for brevity "the delinquent employee"), the order dtd. 4/9/2000 passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the delinquent employee against the order of punishment dtd. 22/4/2000 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement from the services of the Bank, has been upheld.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the delinquent employee was served upon with a charge-sheet dtd. 25/2/1999 alongwith statement of allegations wherein, it was alleged, inter alia, that while working as an Accountant at the Sawai Madhopur Branch of the Bank, he, misusing his authority on 18/5/1998, when the Branch Manager was on leave, opened a current account in the name and style of M/s. Anil Garments, a proprietary concern of Shri Anil Kumar, with the cash amount of Rs.1,100.00 with no introduction obtained. It was further alleged that signature on the account opening form as well as specimen signature card were verified by the delinquent employee; while opening the current account, he did not obtain photographs of the proprietor, stamp of the firm was not affixed, identity of the proprietor of the firm and the genuineness of the address of the firm were also not verified. Further, on that very day, the delinquent employee issued a cheque book in the name of account-holder, passed a cheque of Rs.1,60,000.00, made cash payment and thereby, he allowed an overdraft of Rs.1,58,900.00 on the date of opening of the account itself abusing his authority. One of the charges also pertained to assaulting another officer on 4/2/1999 with a paper weight resulting into profuse bleeding. After holding a regular departmental inquiry, the delinquent employee was found guilty of all the charges by the inquiry officer vide his report dtd. 14/2/2000. After taking into consideration the material on record, the disciplinary authority inflicted the major penalty of compulsory retirement from the services vide order dtd. 22/4/2000 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the delinquent employee before the appellate authority and the reviewing authority, as stated hereinabove.

(3.) The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the delinquent employee is with regard to quantum of punishment. Inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of the reply filed by him to the charge-sheet, he would submit that taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances mentioned therein, imposition of the major penalty of compulsory retirement is too harsh. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed in terms that the respondents be directed to convert the major penalty of compulsory retirement into a lesser penalty.