IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R Jagdish Prasad Sen vs The Bank of Rajasthan and ors.. S.B . Civil Writ Petition No.7847/ 2003 DATE OF ORDER : -17.12.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Smt. Maya Bansal, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Kala, for the respondents. BY THE COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.Petitioner has challenged the award passed by the labour court dated 26.11.2001 whereby reference made with regard to validity of termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondents with effect from 19th March, 1999 was answered in the terms that the termination was valid and legal. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the award on various grounds. It is argued that the inquiry officer was biased against the petitioner. He has wrongly recorded finding of guilt of the petitioner. It was contended that the affidavits of the persons from whom money was alleged to have taken have specifically stated before the inquiry officer that such money was borrowed by the petitioner from them because of serious illness of his father. Their affidavits were not given due credence by the inquiry officer. The Disciplinary Authority, on hearing the petitioner, directed to enquire the matter again and then imposed major penalty. It is therefore argued that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing to defend himself in as much as the respondents have suspended the petitioner. Reference was made to Mr. K.C.Agarwal, who was also found guilty under clauses 19.5 (d) & 19.5(j) of Bi-Partite Settlement, even then he was saddled with m inor penalty and eventually, he was reappointed. 4.Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the charges against Shri K.C.Agarwal are different. There is serious charge of embezzlement against the petitioner that he embezzled money of various account holders. At the initial stage, the petitioner admitted to his guilt but subsequently re- inquiry was ordered to be held in which it was proved that even after receiving amount from the account holders, he did not credit the same in the concerned accounts and thereby embezzled the amount in large sum of money. It was contended that the inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the rules. The labour court has also upheld the order of disciplinary authority and has found the inquiry to be just and fair. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that even as per the penalty order passed by the respondents the Disciplinary authority directed that the petitioner be henceforth removed from services of the Bank with superannuation benefits as may be otherwise due at that stage and without disqualification for further employment. It was contended that so far no superannuation benefits as due have been paid to the petitioner. It was argued that the superannuation benefits would also include the pensionary benefits. This contention is disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the award as well as the other material available on record, I find that the charge of embezzlement was found proved on the basis of evidence and not just on the basis of admission. It has been proved that the petitioner made embezzlem ent of the amount deposited by various accounts holders at different phases.The petitioner was an employee of the Bank and was working in a functionary capacity. All charges of embezzlement are quite serious which led to loss of confidence. The Disciplinary Authority was thus wholly justified removing him from service. No rule has been cited to what are the entitlement of the petitioner as per the order of penalty by which the petitioner was removed from service of the Bank with superannuation benefits would have been otherwise due at that stage. 7.The respondents are therefore directed convey to the petitioner by written com munication as to whatever superannuation benefits are due to be paid to him and if the same has been paid. If any amount is still due, the same shall be paid to him in accordance with law. 8.The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. ( Moh am m ad Rafiq) ,J om pc 3 pool