Yash Pal Mangla vs The Board of Directors, Malwa Gramin Bank, Head Office, Sangrur (Punjab) and another

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—The writ petitioner-appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent assailing the judgment dated 11.12.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 19093 of 2009. The prayer is for setting aside the aforesaid order whereby the order of punishment of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority has been upheld by this Court. Brief facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant was appointed as Officer in the respondent-Bank on 10.6.1989. He was promoted as Official Scale II w.e.f 11.7.2004. On 16.7.2005, he was issued a charge sheet. The allegation against the appellant was that he had embezzled Rs. 25000/- by making a debit entry of Rs. 25000/- in his cash payment scroll at Sr. No. 5 mentioning against Saving Bank Account No. 213 whereas there was no voucher/debit authority from the said account holder and the balance of the account was only Rs. 430/- as on 27.11.2004. Consequently, when the concerned Saving ledger No. 2 was balanced as on 31.3.2005 and there was a difference of excess balance of Rs. 25000/- during balancing of accounts by the Clerk cum Cashier, the appellant decreased the grand total of Balance Book No. 2 by Rs. 25000/- to make it read as Rs. 3,44,042.35 from actual grand total of Rs. 3,69,042.35. He also wrote "tallied" and put his signatures in the balance book. According to the appellant, it was a clerical error. The respondent-Bank filed a complaint to the police. The matter was investigated and it was concluded that it was not a case of embezzlement but a case of clerical mistake. The punishing authority after examining the evidence did not agree with the report submitted by the police and passed the order of punishment of removal from service dated 22.2.2006, which was affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 9.8.2006. Civil Writ Petition No. 1775 of 2007 filed by the appellant was disposed of by directing the statutory appeal to be decided again by passing a speaking order. The appeal was again dismissed on 18.11.2008 after affording personal hearing to the appellant. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.12.2009 upheld the order passed by the appellate authority. Hence this appeal by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the authorities as well as the learned Single Judge had erred in holding that the appellant was guilty of embezzlement. The following factors had not been appreciated in their true perspective:

i) There was resolution of Panchayat for withdrawal of Rs. 25000/- ;

ii) Pass book entry of Rs. 25000/- had been made in the Panchayat account;

iii) There was an entry in the record of the Panchayat of the said amount;

iv) The amount was withdrawn from an account which had only a balance of Rs. 430/- .

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that a criminal case had been filed against the appellant wherein he was acquitted and therefore, the respondent-Bank was not justified in ordering removal of the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that in such a situation, it could not be said that there was any embezzlement. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to various documents to substantiate the same.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid contentions.

The only effort on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant was to record different conclusion on reappreciation of material on record. The disciplinary authority after recording the evidence concluded that there was embezzlement. On appeal, the same was affirmed on 18.11.2008 with the following observations:

The Board observed that Shri Yash Pal Mangla has intentionally withdrawn Rs. 25000/- on 27.11.2004 by fraudulently showing a payment entry in Manager''s cash scroll against SB A/C No. 213. Mr. Mangla''s plea that payment has been made to Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Nangla is a concocted story and is after thought which had been concocted to cover embezzlement of Rs. 25000/- . The documents produced/submissions made by Mr. Mangal at the time of personal hearing on 7.11.2008 from Sr. No. 1 to 6 are the repetition of his appeal dated 24.3.2006 and from 7 to 12 are merely for furthering his concocted story.

Therefore, the Board does not find any merit in the appeal and representation made by Shri Yash Pal Mangla. Hence, appeal and representation of Shri Yash Pal Mangla are rejected and order that the penalty imposed on him by the Disciplinary authority be maintained.

The aforesaid findings had the seal of approval by the learned Single Judge. The view taken by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and affirmed by learned Single Judge is based on appreciation of material on record. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant was not able to explain as to how the amount of Rs. 25000/- could be withdrawn from a saving bank account which had only a balance amount of Rs. 430/- . He was unable to give reply much less satisfactory which could justify that it was a clerical mistake. Had there been any balance in excess of Rs. 25000/- , the plea could have had some weight to be proved on the basis of evidence. In the absence of balance less than Rs. 25000/- , the explanation of the appellant did not inspire confidence. The account holder of Saving Bank Account No. 213 Shri Kuldeep Singh was stated to be present in the Bank on 27.11.2004 when the amount of Rs. 25000/- had been withdrawn by the Gram Panchayat from the saving bank account. No acceptable explanation was tendered as to why the account holder of the said account was present in the Bank on 27.11.2004 when there was only a balance of Rs. 430/- in his account and there was no transaction in his saving bank account No. 213 on that day. The criminal proceedings being different in nature requiring strict proof in a different manner, acquittal in those proceedings would not come to the rescue of the appellant. The findings recorded thus cannot be faulted. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.