JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner was proceeded with disciplinary proceedings while he was working in the East Mada Street Branch of the respondent bank during the year 1991-92. By charge sheet dated 12.12.91, the following charges were framed against the petitioner viz., (1) that he had dishonestly and fraudulently discharged and handed over bill of lading relating to IDBF 11/91 for Rs.5,95,000/- to M/s Peacock Polymers (P) Ltd., one of the clients of the respondent bank on 29.10.91 without receiving payment therefor; (2) that he had addressed a memo dated 26.8.91 to foreign exchange department to debit the branch account for IDBF 5/91 and 6/91 stating that there was sufficient balance in the customer's account, whereas actually the account was showing debit balance. The imputation further alleged that the petitioner had knowingly mislead the bank and made a false statement to foreign exchange department of cathedral branch thereby being a party to the cheating by the borrower.
(2.)The petitioner was also issued with additional charge sheet dated 19.5.92 with five imputations viz., (1) that he had colluded with clerical staff and allowed them to defraud the bank by misappropriating the bank funds; (2) that many cheques were dishonestly and fraudulently entered in the clearing register on various dates when no such instruments were presented. Amounts credited to beneficiary were allowed to be withdrawn thereby causing a loss of Rs.20,000/- to the bank; (3) that he had authorized the release of funds on the same day of the instruments were presented for clearance even when the instruments were returned not debited to party's account thereby causing a loss of Rs.13,000/- to the bank; (4) that he had discounted his own withdrawal slips without sending the instruments to the concerned branch for realization which are still outstanding thereby misused his official position and (5) on 22.4.91 without there being any instrument presented for clearing, the petitioner being the branch manager failed to act in the interest of the bank when a sum of Rs.15,000/- was fraudulently credited to savings bank account of Smt. and Sri Santhanam thereby causing a loss of Rs.15,000/- to the bank.
(3.)Based on the above charge sheets, an inquiry was ordered and the petitioner was given opportunity to defend the charges. The inquiry officer, insofar as the first imputation of the charge sheet dated 12.12.91, even though found that the charge of discharge and handing over of bill of lading was proved, held that there was no fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner in discharging and handing over the bill of lading. Accordingly, the inquiry officer found the said charge partly proved. Insofar as the second imputation of charge sheet dated 12.12.91, the inquiry officer found the same as proved. The imputations 1, 2 and 3 of the additional charge sheet dated 19.5.92 were held only as partly proved and imputations 4 and 5 were found fully proved. The findings of the inquiry were forwarded to the third respondent, the disciplinary authority who by order dated 30.7.94, while agreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer in respect of the second imputation charge sheet dated 12.12.91 and 4th and 5th imputations of additional charge sheet dated 19.5.92, disagreed with the findings in regard to the other imputations as to the findings of the inquiry officer that the charges were only partly proved. Holding so, the disciplinary authority found all the charges were proved and accordingly ordered punishment of dismissal. Questioning the said order the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the second respondent, the appellate authority by order dated 12.1.95. Challenging those orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.