-^ OF JUDIC.4TURE AT (C.G.) PETIHONER! RESPONDENTSs PETITION OF 2003 V.K. WGlnekar, S/o D.M. WaJnekQr, Aged ab^ut 48 ysars, Ex-Cashier, R/o Dlprapara, &Qyaibandh, Distt. Bilaspur (C.6.) 1. BIIaspur K^hetriya ^rQrriin Bank, Throwh; its President, Cffice^ Vyapar VihQr, Bilaspur (C.&) 2. The ManQger, Bilaspur Raipur Kshetrjya ©raminBank, Office? Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.©.) POST FOR ORDER ON 29th 2005 a's '••^ •—. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge _^^September 2003 COURT OF JUDICATURE AT iC.G.} PETITIONERs RESPONDENTSs PETITION OF 2003 V.K. Walnekar, S/o D.M. Walnekar, Aged about 48 yesrs, Ex-C^hier, R/o Distt. Bilaspur (C.@.) 1, Kshctriya ©rairiinBank, Throuqh; its President, Offlcc^ Vihar, Bilaspur (C.@.) 2. The Bllaspur Raipur Kshetriya &ramin Bank, Offices Vyapar Vlhar, Bilaspur (C^) - H.B. Adyocate^ For the !—-- Shrl L.C. Bhadoo. J OR bER (Passed on 29th September, 2003) 1. The this writ petition under Articb 226 of the Constitution of India, chaltenging the order 22.04.2003 of respondent No.2 by which the petitioner has removed from the and aiso th@ order 21,Ca7.2CS03 by which respondent No.l has the of the petitioner. 2. Facts to fiiing of 1+iis writ petition are fnat -rtie petitioner was working as LDC-cum-Cashier in the Bank. A !ett-er dated 20.08.99 was on fne petitioner In connection with financia! irreguEarities coiTimitted by the petitioner repiied by him on 14,12,99, A on the petitioner on 04,01.20CSO by No,l and ultirriateiy, the petitioner vide 05.09.2000. Reply to the charge was flied by the petitloner. Vide order dated 19.10.2000, enquiry was instituted against Q •<- the petitioner and R.K. as Enquiry Offlcer and S.C. Sao WGS appointed as Presenting Officcr, A notice to the on 02,12.2000. The Enquiry Officer and M.L. as Enqulry Officer, who conducted the enquiry and the aepartmBntaJ has fited 20 docutnents nameiy, PD-i to PDa20 Oi-id exarriined. The enquiry heid on 05.10.2002 and again on 09.10.2002. On 10.10.2002 Mohd. Ismail Qureshl, D.5. Chaudharl and S,L. Kdwartya examined. Thereafter, the Enquir/ Officer submitted the report (Anngxure P-20) and a show notice to the petitioner by the discjpiinary aul+sority. Jhe. petitioner sent his repiy on 09.04.2003. After considBring the report of the Enquiry Officer ond evidence/vide order 22.04,2003 respondent No.2 the order regarding the remova! of the petitioiier from services, The of the petitioner is that this oi-der is iiiegal as against tiie petitioner and not pi^oved, and Ilabie to be set aside. The petitioner fited the agdnst the termination order before No.l, who the vide order dated 21.07.2000. 3. I have heard the barned counsei for the petitioner and perused the report of the Enquiry Offlcer, 4. Charges against the petitioner regarding his misconduct were that on 20.07.99 when ths petitioner was working as LDC-cum-Assistant Cashier, one Mohd. Ismai! Qureshi paid him Rs.1,000/- for depositing In fne account. However, the petitioner prepared a voucher of only Rs.600/" for depositing 1+ie in th@ account vVhen the and enquired from Mohd. Ismail, on enquiry Mohd< Ismai! disclosed that he has paid Rs.1,000/- for depositing. On tiiis the petitioner was caiiecj by the Bank Manager before whom he tsndered his apoiogy and prepared a voucher of Rs,l,000/- after destroying the cariier voucher and that amount was deposited^ Again on 28,07.99^< , 3 IF one Anll sent Rs,3,000/as aiong with his for depositing in his account, the petitioner only Rs.2,000/BS and to that In the iedger and pass book. When Anll Agrawal came to know about this, he sent his person for rectification of th@ on this the petitioner again corracted by depositlng Rs.3,000/-. On 15.04.99 a!so Rs.600/'- were fou-nd tess in the of 1+ie In hls reply, the petitioner had admitted all but he has exphnation. 5. Mohd. Ismail and have by the Enquiry Officer and prov©dthe misconduct of the petitloner. The counsei for -Hie petitioner has not pointed out any illegality or irregularity committed by the Enquiry Officer conducting the enquiry, nor the could point out any vioSation of principtes of natural justice or viohtion of statutory' rules. Therefore, I do not find any to interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. 6. as by Hon'bie the Apex Court in the of B.C. vs. -of and reported in (1995) 6 SCC 74°; of vs. B.K. and others reported in JT (8) SC and R.S. vs. of Punjab and in TT (6) SC 507 fnat techi-iicai of no and even rute of adequacy of or reliabl!ity of cannot be permitted to be and authorify the and conciusion support from them, the discip!inary authority is entitied to hold the delinquent guijty when the findings are on evidence, The Court cannot re-appreciate or and this Is not a of no-evidence. froin that th®petitioner himscif has admitted in h is rep!y to the charge that irregularitles commitred by him, Therefore, is no substance in the arguments of the learned counsei for the petitioner that to this effect the charges not proved against the petitloner. S.^B«^^^-.^^*»U<.^:>. The doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has no application. of probabiiities and materiais on record are to arrive at the conciusion, 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment to the patitloner is disproportionate to the mjsconduct. On this count alsa, as has by the Hon'ble Court in the of Chand vs. Food Corporation of Indla Ltd. and reported in TT (11) SC 507that IIA officer is required to hlgher of honesty and Integr'lty^ He with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/empioyee of the bank is required to take ail to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his dutles with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and dii'igence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. ^ood conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employeeof tlie bank," In Ihc of B.C. the Supreme Court held that "The discipiinary authority or on the appeiiate authority, foct-findlng authoritjes have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipiirse and they are with the discretion to Irripose ke^plng In The magnitude or gravitv of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunai, while exercislng the power of judiciat revlew, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penQJt/ and impose some othe-r penalt^< If the punishment imposed by fne discipiinary authority' or the appellate authorlty shocks the conscience of the Hlgh Court/TribunQl, it would appropriately mould the retief/' 8. In the !ight of the above idid down by the Hon'bte Court if we into the misconduct of the petitioner, at the reievGnt time he as Cashier and on occasions he found conimjtj'ing irreguiarity. In the first instance, of depositing Rs.1,000/- of a customer, he prepared voucher of Rs.600/- oniy, and in other in 1ne year of Rs.3,000/- he the entry' of Rs.2,000/-. Later on, on enquir/ by the party and tiis Bank Soma / ~7o ^•^ he admitted his guilty and rectjfted the Simijarly, on 15.04.1999, Rs.600/- was found less in the cash baiance. Therefore, thc petitioner are very serious he tried to the -money which by th© and the and accordingiy, he had to the aiTiount. Therefore, irg any manner, the punishment of rerriovaj by the di^cipjinary authority and confirmed by authority, by any of imagination cannot be to be conscious shocking or to the mjsconduct 9. Therefore, the petition is liabje to be and it is at the itself. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge -^