BABULAL Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order as contained in two Memos dated 31.08.2010 at Annexures 5 and 6, whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits and for quashing order of appellate authority dated 30.08.2011 whereby the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been confirmed and further prayer has been made for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as sub-staff in Canara Bank in the year 1990. While continuing as such an allegation was made against the petitioner that on 15.04.2009, on instruction of Manager of Canara Bank, Currency Chest Branch, he along with one V.N.K. Tirkey, Clerk went to TRF Extension Counter, Jamshedpur for remittance of cash of Rs. 5 lacs and purported to have delivered to Sri Baishakhoo Kumbhar, Clerk, who was working in cash counter on that day, and against delivery of cash submitted acknowledgement. But, as per the procedure, when branch advice for receiving such cash was not received even after one and half month, the Manager Canara Bank, Currency Chest Branch contacted over telephone the TRF Extension Counter, who informed that no such cash was received by them on 15.04.2009. In the backdrop of these facts, an F.I.R was lodged by Manager, Canara Bank, Currency Chest Branch against to Sri Baishakhoo Kumbhar, Clerk and others. Besides, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner, which culminated into passing of impugned order of compulsory retirement, which has been confirmed in appeal.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner cannot be punished for such fault, as he was only the sub-staff carrying the cash chest (box) with other clerk and delivered the money from currency chest to TRF Extension Office at Bistupur, hence, the petitioner had nothing to do with the matter. It has been submitted that in the departmental enquiry not a single witness has said anything against the petitioner and whatever was said in the FIR, has been reiterated in the evidence. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the enquiry officer in its report has observed that it is a unique case for him wherein five employees have been charge-sheeted for the same charge of embezzlement of amount of Rs. 5 lac. Uniqueness in the sense that an employee who himself has been charge-sheeted in this case has been brought as the management witness. It has further been submitted that though surprisingly there is nothing against the petitioner in enquiry report and even after observation of the enquiry officer that if any person is responsible that may be Baisakhoo Kumbhar but, no second show cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority before inflicting punishment order, hence, the impugned order is vulnerable. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of S.N. Narula Vs. Union of India & Ors as reported in (2011) 4 SCC 591; in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors Vs. K.K. Verma as reported in (2010) 13 SCC 494 and the decision rendered in the case of Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr as reported in (2015) 4 SCC 458.