WP(C) 3609/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2003 by which he ha s been dismissed from service with disqualification for future employment. The i nstant writ petition was filed on 18.08.08, i.e. after about 5 years of the said order of dismissal. The petitioner has been so dismissed from service pursuant to the departmental proceeding initiated against him. According to the petitione r, he could not participate in the departmental proceeding because of his menta l disorder which he had allegedly suffered during the period from 01.08.2002 to 30.07.2008. In this connection, the petitioner has annexed a handwritten certi ficate purportedly issued by one Md. Kismat Ali, the purported Kabiraj. The petitioner while was serving as Assistant Manager of the respondent Bank was issued with a memorandum of charge sheet dated 01.07.2002 with the alle gation of large scale financial irregularities by way of sanctioning fictitious/ fake demand loans etc. as indicated in the memorandum of charge sheet. The aforesaid memorandum of charge sheet dated 01.07.2002 was followed b y another memorandum dated 31.07.2002 placing the petitioner under suspension. T hereafter a regular departmental proceeding was conducted against the petitioner in which he did not participate. It is not the case of the petitioner that no opportunity of being heard was provided to him. He admits receipt of each and every documents, but by filin g the writ petition after five years of dismissal from service he placed relianc e on the aforesaid purported certificate issued by the purported Kabiraj. The departmental proceeding was conducted following due procedure and th e charges levelled against the petitioner having been established, the aforesaid order of dismissal was passed by the disciplinary authority. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated th at the petitioner on receipt of the memorandum of charge sheet never intimated a bout his purported illness and that inspite of service of notice etc., he did no t appear before the enquiry officer and did not participate in the enquiry proce eding. In the counter affidavit, the respondent bank has annexed the letter date d 12.04.2002 written by the petitioner and addressed to the Regional Manager of the Bank. In the said letter the petitioner admitted his guilt of taking an amou nt of Rs. 1,28,500/- by way of sanctioning fake demand loans (nine accounts) on different dates during the period from 07.04.2001 to 10.10.2001, details of whic h have been indicated in the letter. The aforesaid letter dated 12.04.02 was followed by another letter of th e same date, i.e. 12.04.2002, by which the petitioner admitted the fact of bring ing files containing the documents in respect of the accounts sanctioned by him. It was admitted that the files were taken to home for rectification of the irre gularities in the accounts. As per the letter, the irregularities were yet to be regularised. By yet another letter dated 16.05.2002 (Annexure-E), the petitione r returned to the Sr. Manager of the Bank certain national saving certificates w hich were taken out by the petitioner from the Bank. Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since th e petitioner was suffering from mental disorder as reflected in the aforemention ed certificate, he could not participate in the departmental proceeding and as s uch he should be provided with another opportunity of being heard. None has appeared for the respondent Bank. I have considered the submissions mad e by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the entire materials on record. The charges brought against the petitioner are all related to financial irregula rities. The petitioner by his aforesaid letters admitted commission of fraud by way of sanctioning fake/fictitious demand loans in certain accounts and thereby misappropriated public money. Although the charge sheet etc. were duly served on the petitioner, it was never his contention that due to certain compelling circ umstances he was not in a position to participate in the said proceeding. The on ly documents which the petitioner has placed reliance is the aforementioned purp orted certificate issued by the purported Kabiraj. It is not believable that the person suffering from mental disorder to the extent of not being able to partic ipate in a departmental proceeding would undertake treatment under a Kabiraj for six years. Further the said certificate is also not believable on the face of i t. The very fact that the petitioner has annexed all the documents to the writ peti tion pertaining to the departmental proceeding would go to show that he had dul y received the documents from the enquiry and disciplinary authorities and he re tained the same without participating in the proceeding and now by filing the w rit petition on the basis of the aforesaid certificate has taken a chance for a favourable consideration. Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner upo n reference to the admission made by the petitioner in respect of defalcation of the amount of Rs. 1,28,500/- by the petitioner which he had admitted by his let ter dated 12.04.2002, submits that the amount involved as indicated in the charg e sheet being much more than that, such admission on the part of the petitioner per se cannot go to establish the charge of defalcation of other amounts. I am a fraid, such an argument made by Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misplaced. It is immaterial as to whether the petitioner has defalcat ed Rs. 1,28,500/- or more than that, but what matters, is the trustworthyness of the petitioner. The bank reposed confidence on him which he did not retain and defalcated public money. Above being the position, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugne d order of dismissal from service and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed .