K M GANG Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Appeal has been filed under Section 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated December 7, 1985 by which he dismissed the writ petition praying for quashing the order (Annexure 12) of his dismissal dated September 12,1979 and the appellate order (Annexure 15) dated November 25, 1980 confir-ming his dismissal and for directing the respondents to take him back in service. The facts of the case giving rise to this special appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE petitioner was a clerk in the Central Bank of India, Jalorigate, Jodhpur. In May 1976, a memo (Annexure 1) was served upon him calling his explanation for 'drawing Rs. 1,000/- from his account without sufficient balance, making credit entry of Rs. 1000/- in Teller card without any credit voucher, effecting inter potations in the registers of the bank subsequently to show adequate balance in his account etc. His explanation was not found satisfactory and he was placed under suspension. On November 13,1976, charge sheet (Annexure 6) containing 6 charges was served upon him. Shri S. B. Saxena, Branch Manager State Bank of India, New Delhi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, Sri M. M. Lalla, Chief Officer was appointed as the Enquiry Officer-Cum-Disciplinary Authority to hold the enquiry against him and O. P. Sharma During the enquiry, the petitioner raised an objection that the provisions of para 19. 14 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66 have not been complied with. After recording the evidence of the parties, taking their written arguments (Annexure 8 and 9) and hearing them, the Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner K. M. Gang has been frequently mis-using his position and authority as a teller, he used bank's funds by making fictitious entries in the teller card, all acts of omissions and commission have been committed in his personal account and he has committed gross misconduct. After hearing him on the quantum of punishment, the Enquiry Officer-cum-Discipli-nay Authority dismissed him by his order (Annexure 12) dated September 12,1979. Appeal (Annexure 11) was filed by him. It was heard by Sri D. K. Gagi, Appellate Authority, Central Bank of India, Lucknow and it was dismis-sed by his 'decision' dated November 25,1980 vide Annexure 15.

(3.) THE petitioner has stated in his submissions dated 20. 11,85, in support of the writ petition, that the documents (Annexure R/l) do not appear to be genuine and seem to be a later creation as is clear from them and the memo (Annexure 17) dated November 28, 1979, appointing Shri P. K. Gegri, Chief Manager, Regional Office, Lucknow as the appellate authority for the disposal of the petitioner's appeal. THEre is no substance in this objection. THEre is nothing in the Annexure R/l which may indicate that these documents are not genuine documents and were subsequently prepared. During the enquiry, the respondent's representative stated that efforts were being made to produce the circular of the Head Office vide Annexure 5 (also quoted in para No. 1-B of the memo of special appeal ). Annexure 17 is neither inconsistent or in conflict with the Annexure R/l. THEy rather support it. It is correct that the initial reference of the Annexure R/l is made in para (c) of the reply and this para (c) has no reference in the accompanying affidavit of Sri G. N. Temani. From this fact alone, it cannot be said that the Annexure R/l is not proved. It can only be said that theaffidavit of Sri G. N. Temani was not carefully drafted. Annexure R/l has also reference in para No. 4 of the reply and it is not disputed that this para is included in the verification para of the accompanying affidavit of Shri G. N. Temani. It stood proved from this para of the affidavit.