"•St-'WiSagSs KOSE c IH THE HISH GO^BT OF •roBie'AT^B.E AT 3'ABM-gtJB W<P.^Eia^^ ^^ /1999 .E>») aetitloaer Respaadents l. Vc^—r^. 'osa'S^^y Kago Bao TeBibarkar, S/@ SKri SaKtiarsun Temburlcar, Aged aboat 47 yeaeai, R/e G/@ R.S. Waella.wa* SoaQ KAraaa StpEes, .Opposlt aailwcty Statiea Ward No. 18, Rajaaadgaon - 491 441 VSRS3S Itie eentE'ai Baak af Indla, 'B'trough.its Qiainaan cwn Maaagiag Birestor, eeatral effilee, GhaiideraaKlii* Heriman Peiat H@MBAX. Z®aalManager eam Agpellate Authorlty eea-tral Bank ef ladl.a, First SloQC, Bloefc-C, Benibay Harg G.B. &sad, Ralpar. BBglQnal Maaager eaa BiseJLplli»ary Sntb@rity» eanttral Banli of Zndia Shr.t ©eep4 Soutfa AvBaue : Raipaff Cooperatlve HoasJ.ag S@eAefey» BsApar (M.P»). WRIT PBTITION 1»N©ERARTICfcE 226/227 ®E*1HE eONSTITUTION QF XHMA 2. 3. ir <dwi^i«in«,u>Tilwid, (3|ril-(-iy*( .i^:.P..ts(o:.'£?.'fc.?. *11»1«1^TTq? •'—i—""—^4"^^"t-^^". 3TI^9Tq3<F ('jcrfgdS) W^200 aii^CTwrR'ii* naiT3II^lrt)*li<b ?^IT8R^feraiT$?T \ wats Offlce 7.11.2005 Shri P. R. Pataakar, Ad^ Senior Advocate. Heard. The petitioner Manager/Scale-I Officer with| Branch Offiee Rajiiaadgaon. against hiui to llie efFect thal Scale- I Of&cer at Branch 27.10.1992 to 15.2.1996 hat deposited by fhe depositors braach premises for depoi defi-auded fhe Baak by inakir(i of fhose account holders to ffa|i A departinental enquuj' vide'his enquuy report datec] as proved after giving full petitioner. The petitioner w^ iaunediate effect vide order dj The petitioner fhereafter pr^l before the Zonal Maaager, N6.2. The Respondent No.2| 22.6.1998 afGrmmg the finf: Officer aad fhe older passej Thereafter the petitioner pref^i 'oitiInAi *ii*inT<ffai^l •(ISl't^N ^SI^TSII^?! ocate assisting Shri P. Diwakar, working as Assistant the Central fiaak of India in. The chai^e sheet was issued the petitioner while workuig as Lauji duriug the period froia v^. inisappropriated the amounts And tena loan borrowers on the tit in to ftieir accounts and [g false entries iu the pass books extent of Rs.6,900/ -, was held. The Enquuy Officer 24.12.1997 found the chat^es opportunily of hearuig to the is dismissed fixiin service wifh rted 24.2.1998 (Annexure P/10). ferred an appeal ou 10.4.1998 Baak of India/ Respondent passed a detailed order dated [ings recorded by the Enquiiy by the DiscipUnary Aufhorily. ^rred aa appeal to the ChainiiaQ- Cd-ntral SP/FS/2005-20,000 v)wi'-qi<tirt^SF^m3,fS[c5RTg^ qmcCTwiTf^ •^-^•^^1.^. sn^?r<Bif^tra? :ET3n3TT^Tfh*ti<p ^ y ^200 3ni?T(ra^(<^g^£t) g'RTrW^cTaiAn <bl<lfd41-l t1|*fdl"^fe><3<R|^K ^sff^HaiT^n cuiii-Mauaguig Director/Res^ondent No.l on 2^5.1998 which was also rejected vide order 4ated 4.1.1999. Haviug heard leamed) counsel for fhe petitioner aad ha%ing go.ne fhrough ftie rec^rds offhe case I do not find fhat rt^is-'a'fits'casefor interfet-en.ce uader Articfe 226 of the ConStituJfiiaih of India. The| petitioner was given sufficient opportiuuly for preserttui^ his case and fhereafter the petitioner has ffled an app^al before theAppeUate Aufhority whichwas dismissed aad f4ereaftea; fhe inercy appeal filed by the petitiQner has also be^n dismissed. This is a case of einbezzleinent of inoney de]|>osited by fhe account holders in fhe accoiuits wherein llie[ trust of fhe depositors is also involved. In view offhe foregou|ig, the petition deserves to be and is dKmissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Rr,^ / l^<r, P f^y^" ^'