BIRENDRA PRATAP DEV SON OF AWADH KISHORE DEV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARUCHA, P.O BANKA, P.S. MERAL, DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ applications, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 9/10.02.2009, whereby the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for adjustment of their services in any of the Co-operative Bank and for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for adjustment of their services in any of the Co-operative Bank in the State of Jharkhand.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner-Birendra Pratap Dev was initially appointed as Assistant in Central Cooperative Bank, Daltonganj on 01.11.1984 whereas petitioner-Ram Krishna Choubey was appointed as a Peon in Central Cooperative Bank, Daltonganj on 01.09.1979. While continuing as such a show cause was issued to the petitioners for wrong delivery of money to customers and manipulation of Bank amount. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted their show cause. However, departmental proceeding was initiated against them. The departmental proceeding ended with a direction to petitioner Birendra Pratap Dev and Branch Manager to deposit the manipulated amount of Rs. 76,135.00 in equal instalments whereas amount of Rs. 54090.00 was directed to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner-Ram Krishna Choubey and further imposition of punishment of two annual increments with cumulative effect were also imposed upon the petitioners. In the meantime, the Central Cooperative Bank was liquidated and a report was prepared by the Secretary, Cooperative Department whereby it was ordered to adjust only 137 employees and rest employees against whom departmental proceeding was pending were not adjusted and their adjustment were ordered to be taken up after outcome of the proceeding. The departmental proceeding was concluded against all and out of eleven persons only two persons were adjusted. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner ordered for adjustment of all persons, but, when the petitioners were not adjusted, they moved the department for their adjustment. But the department headed by the Member Committee rejected their claim vide order dated 09/10.02.2009 on the ground that though the departmental proceeding has been concluded, the petitioners have been awarded punishment, as such their case was not fit for adjustment.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the two persons, namely Vinay Kumar Singh and Bachhu Paswan against whom criminal case is pending have been adjusted and the petitioners who stand on better footing have been denied the benefit of adjustment. It has further been submitted that order dated 09/10.02.2009 is contrary to opinion/order of the Secretary, at Annexure 9 to W.P. (S) No. 3742 of 2010, who has mentioned that the petitioners have been exonerated from the charges.