MD. SALAHUDDIN AZAD SON OF MD. SHAHABUDDIN, RESIDENT OF QRS. NO. L 050, SECTOR 2D, STREET NO. Vs. BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 27.04.2006, pertaining to dismissal from services and the order dated 02.02.2007, passed by the appellate authority and has sought for writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to his post with consequential benefits.

(2.) The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that when the petitioner was continuing as a Head Cashier (Category-'E'), Bank of India, Baghmara Branch he was placed on suspension for gross misconduct alleged to have been committed by him for fraudulent withdrawal of amounts from the SB Accounts of different account holders in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary action. The petitioner was served with memorandum of charge-sheet containing five charges for gross misconduct of doing act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank within the meaning of Clause 5 (j) of the bipartite settlement, dated 10.04.2002, as is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ application. In pursuance to the charge-sheet, the enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report holding all the charges levelled against the charge-sheeted employees to be proved. The disciplinary authority (Respondent No. 3) on the basis of the enquiry report, served a second show cause notice along with the enquiry report to the petitioner for proposed punishment of dismissal vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition and the petitioner submitted his reply before the respondent-disciplinary authority putting forth the detailed reply denying the charges and the disciplinary authority passed the final order dated 27.04.2006 by imposing punishment of dismissal from services as per Annexure-6 to the writ application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of dismissal from services, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 02.02.2007, passed the order affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for mitigation of his grievances.

(3.) Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing has vehemently submitted that the impugned action of the respondents in dismissing the petitioner without any conclusive evidence, that too on the circumstantial evidences is grossly arbitrary and actuated by mala fide exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority has mechanically acted on the enquiry report without scrutinising the culpability of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-9 of the writ application, the report of the Chief Handwriting Expert, which, inter alia, specifically mentions that by applying the scientific method of Handwriting identification, forgery can be detected but not the forger i.e. it cannot be answered, who has done the forgery. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the said note of the Handwriting Expert has vociferously contended that the petitioner could not have become scapegoat, when the specimen signature of the hand-writings of all other employees of the Bank were available. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the supplementary affidavit, dated 02.05.2016, has further submitted that for same set of allegation, criminal case against the petitioner vide G.R. No. 6181 of 2005 has ended in acquittal vide Judgment dated 10.02.2014 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad (as per Annexure-10 to the writ application). In view of the changed circumstances, the impugned order of dismissal from services, passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority ought to be considered afresh.