SHYAM DEO SINGH Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was asked vide Memorandum dated 11th November, 2011 (Annexure 3) to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for passing cheques of Rs.16,000/- without verifying and comparing the signatures on the cheques. Vide Annexure 4 (Memorandum dated 25th February 2003), petitioner was again called to submit his explanation saying why punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect under 12 (e) of memorandum of settlement dated 10th April 2002 be not imposed.

(2.) THEREAFTER, vide Charge Sheet dated 20th December 2004 (Annexure 5), petitioner was charge sheeted on two accounts: (i) "Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank" (ii) "neglect at work, negligence in performing duties". Enquiry Officer, in his final report dated 10.08.2005 (Annexure 8) has observed that initially petitioner has denied the forged signatures on the cheques passed by him. However, thereafter, he has concurred with the report of CID, Bihar, wherein signatures were found forged in the cheques. Thereafter, punishment of reduction of two increments for the period of two years without cumulative effect was awarded vide order dated 28.11.2005, Annexure No.12. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has knocked doors of this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Union Bank of India has vehemently argued that since petitioner has failed to submit his explanation to earlier Memorandum, therefore, Bank vide Memorandum dated 20th December 2004 has charge sheeted the petitioner on two counts; one being "doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank"; and other being "neglect at work, negligence in performing duties". Therefore, punishment awarded is totally justified and no interference be called for.