D.S. Ratre vs Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank

Satish Kumar Agnihotri, J.—The present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 31.3.1995 (Annexure P/l) whereby the Petitioner was removed from service.

The undisputed facts in nutshell are that, on 21.10.1993 (Annexure P/3) the Petitioner was served with a charge sheet to submit his reply within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the charge sheet, containing two charges, firstly, the Petitioner received a sum of Rs. 9000/- on 7.12.1992 while working as Clerk-cum-Cashier from the Customer (Shri Narayan Patel) and not deposited the same in the Bank before 30.1.1993, and secondly, that the Petitioner in order to benefit him and to serve his interest sold the hypothecated vehicle without closure of the Loan Account No. DL/V/2/89 and without discharging the liability of making payment to the Bank before 24.2.1993. The above stated conduct of the Petitioner was treated as grave misconduct under Regulation 30(1) of the Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1980.

The Petitioner submitted his reply on 2.11.1993 (Annexure P/4) stating that he had not received any money on 7.12.1992 from the customer, Shri Narayan Patel but the same was received on 27.1.1993 which was deposited in the Bank on 29/30.1.1993. With regard to the charge No. 2 the Petitioner submitted his reply that the disputed vehicle was used for the purpose of remittance work and the said vehicle was not in such a condition as to perform the remittance work which was very urgent. Keeping in view the condition of the vehicle, the vehicle was transferred to other person. The Bank has not suffered any loss on account of the transfer of the vehicle, as the amount was paid with interest on 18.9.1993 and 27.10.1993.

The enquiry was conducted by one Shri G.K. Sharma. The Enquiry Officer, who after having examined all the documents produced by both the parties and considering two witnesses produced by the Bank and one witness produced by the delinquent employee i.e. the Petitioner, came to the conclusion that the customer (complainant) Shri Narayan Patel deposited a sum of Rs. 9000/- on 7.12.1992 with the Petitioner, who was working as Clerk-cum Cashier. The Petitioner retained the money with him till 30th January, 1993 when the same was deposited through one Shri Laxmi Narayan. Accordingly the charge No. 1 was found proved. The charge No. 2 was also found proved. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 17.10.1994.

On the basis of the enquiry report (Annexure P/5) the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice on 23.2.1995 (Annexure P/6) as to why the punishment of removal from service should not be imposed. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished along with the second show cause notice dated 23.2.1995. Having received the notice dated 23.2.1995 the Petitioner submitted his reply on 6.3.1995 (Annexure P/7) to the effect that the enquiry report was perverse, as the complainant has failed to produce any receipt of cash paid to the Petitioner on 7.12.1992 and further it was stated that in fact the cash was handed over to the Petitioner on 27.1.1993 which could be deposited on 30.1.1993 on account of some unavoidable circumstances. The Petitioner further submitted that in the ledger, the entry made by him on 21.1.1993, was by mistake.

After having considered the reply of the Petitioner, the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 31.3.1995 (Annexure P/1) imposed the punishment of removal from service. The Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board of Directors of the Respondents on 16.5.1995 (Annexure P/8). reiterating the same submissions which he had made in the reply to the second show cause notice. The appellate authority by his order dated 1.3.1996 (Annexure R/7) dismissed the appeal agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and the order passed by the disciplinary authority holding that the misconduct committed by the Petitioner is of very serious nature, of having committed gross financial irregularity and comes within the purview of "grave misconduct" and as such the punishment of removal from service was just and proper.

Being aggrieved the Petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order of removal dated 31.3.1995