LAWS(JHAR)-2011-1-54

ANU SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. PALAMAU KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

Decided On January 12, 2011
Anu Shankar Prasad Appellant
V/S
Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 30th April, 2005 contained in annexure-5 to the writ petition whereby the services of the Petitioner had been terminated and thereafter he further prayed to quash the order dated 30.8.2005 contained in annexure-6 to the writ petition whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner had been rejected by the appellate authority.

(2.) While the Petitioner was posted as Accountant at Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Panki during the period of February 1995 to April 1999. It was found that on several occasions, he made the payment to the persons without following the procedure. Several occasions he fraudulently withdrawn bank's money from Bank's customer's saving bank accounts and by opening fake Demand Loan accounts in the fictitious names in an improper, unjustified and illegal way. It is also alleged that he was violating normal rules of the business of the banking, he exercised the power of superior authority, while granting the said loans to the borrowers. He used to cover up his deeds by placing forged documents, vouchers, withdrawals and wrong balancing of the accounts and further he did not take the proper security for the said transactions. After conclusion of the inquiry the Disciplinary Authority took the decision to terminate his services.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Bank had proceeded ex-parte against the Petitioner and no proper opportunity was given to him to defend his case. He further pointed out that after framing the charges against the Petitioner, no evidence was taken; and there is no evidence against the Petitioner to establish the charge. He further pointed out that he demanded certain documents during the enquiry and the said documents were not given to him. He further pointed out that the quantum of punishment which has been awarded is excessive.