D.BARAIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the decision of the Board of Directors of the respondent -Bihar State Financial Corporation, whereby an order of punishment by way of dismissal and recovery of amount has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted during the relevant time as Assistant Office Superintendent in the respondent -Bihar State Financial Corporation (in short the Corporation) in 1997 at Palamau Branch of the Corporation and he was served with charge sheet alleging that he has committed gross misconduct, serious irregularity and gross negligence in duty and responsibility and acted in the manner detrimental to the interest of the Corporation in discharge of his duties. The allegation was that during his posting at Palamau Branch at Daltonganj in 1997, while dealing with the loan file of M/s Sri Katha and Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Chandwa (earlier M/s Chandwa Wood Product) he, in connivance with the proprietor for wrongful gain ignoring the instructions issued by the head office of the Corporation and with malafide intention, handed over the draft to the person concerned instead of depositing the same in the State Bank of India, Chandwa Branch. The petitioner submitted his explanation and thereafter a departmental enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was submitted stating that the charges have been proved against the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment by way of dismissal from service. The petitioner did not prefer the appeal and this question was raised at the time of admission of this WPS and Court was of the view that similar other persons, against whom charges were also framed, enquiry was conducted, they were punished and they filed the appeal and in that appeal dismissal was reduced to the punishment of compulsory retirement and recovery of the loan sustained by the Corporation and Court felt that similar order passed in the appeal, hence it did not ask the petitioner to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal.]

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him and he had violated the instructions given in the letter of the head office of the Corporation and the Enquiry Officer after considering the evidence and material on record, recorded the finding against the petitioner and that finding has been disputed by the petitioner in reply to the second show cause notice.