NARENDRA KUMAR VERMA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the original order of punishment dated 28.5.2003 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent No. 3, Regional Manager cum Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of withdrawal of special allowance permanently and reduction by one stage in time scale of pay in the departmental proceeding on certain alleged misconduct. The petitioner's appeal has also been rejected vide order dated 22.9.2003 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent No. 2, Deputy General Manager cum Appellate Authority, which is also impugned herein.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that at the relevant point of time when the alleged misconduct took place petitioner was posted as Computer Operator in the Bank of Baroda at the Bokaro Steel Plant Branch. He was served with charge-sheet on 11.1.2002 for the following charges:- (a) that he made entry in the ALPM under transaction No. 378 a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the debit of savings bank account No. 2243 when no such voucher was in existence; (b) that he made entry in the ALPM under transaction No. 437 a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the credit of savings bank account No. 3416 when no such voucher was in existence. For such acts of the petitioner it was alleged that it amounted to misconduct in the nature of (i) fraud upon the bank; (ii) acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank; (iii) attempting to put the bank in financial loss and (iv) that such act was unbecoming of a bank employee. The departmental inquiry was conducted by the Senior Manager, Gulmuri Branch in which the management produced witnesses in support of the prosecution and the petitioner submitted his written defence. Thereafter, the inquiry report was submitted on 2.12.2002 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner submitted his representation before the Disciplinary Authority cum Regional Manager on 23.12.2002, where after the impugned punishment has been imposed by Annexure-5 dated 28.5.2003.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that it has only been a case of mistake but there was no deliberate act or omission on his part which in fact resulted to any loss to the Bank and neither was there any complain on behalf of the respective account holders. According to the petitioner for each such alleged charge separate punishment has been imposed by the respondent authorities which apparently are in teeth of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.4.2002 (Annexure-8) arrived at between the management of Banks and their workmen. As per the said settlement the employee found guilty of gross misconduct may be imposed with certain punishment which are defined there under but each such punishment is a separate punishment and for one charge two such punishment cannot be imposed in the nature of major penalty. Therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner are also disproportionate and contrary to the settlement arrived at between the Bank and its employees. The petitioner's appeal has also been rejected, thereafter by the Appellate Authority by the impugned order at Annexure-7 dated 22.9.2003. On these grounds petitioner has challenged the impugned orders.