-•"s.^l^^' p.ese^I^.^....---"" *wd ""'""^ S1N6LE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BItASPUR WRIT PETITION rCRIMINALINO. l-\<o^ /20Q6 PETITIONER COMPLAINANT RESPONDENTS RB^rVTSD-COPY S^ ^^» Budharu Ram Bhardwaj, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Dauram Bhardwaj [Working as - Head Cashier, Union Bank of India, Branch- Arjiuii, District Rajriandgaon (C.G.)] R/o Neirmada Nagar, Uday Body Builders Road, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur [G.G.]. VERSUS ^. 1] State of Chhattisgarh - through The Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.]. /2] Inspector General Police Chhattisgarh, Shankar Nagar, Raipur [C.G.]. '^'3] Superintendent ofPolice- District Kabirdham [C.G.], . 4] Station House Officer, Pollce Station Kunda, Districf Kabirdham [C.G.]. /- 5] Union Bank of India, through - Chairman and Managmg Director, Central office, Union Bank Bhawan, 239, Nariman Point, Mumbai [Mal'iara^tra] " -6] Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office;, Bhadbhada Road, T.T. NagarBhopal [M.P.]. •''7] Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office Maudahapara Raipur . [C.G.]' : ', ^8] firanch Manager) Unlon Bank of India, Bilaspur Base Branch [Satellite Braneh Damapzir] Bilaspur [C.G.]. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ~x/l -1- HI6H COURT OF CHHATHSGARH 4T BILASPUR S.B. ; Hon'ble Shri Justic®Satish K. Aanihartri WRTT PETmON (CRIMINAU N0. 4650 OF 2006 Petitioner Respondents versus Budharu Ram Bhardwaj State of Chhattisgarh and others Pressnt : Mr. Ashok Swarnakar, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. 5.5. Agrawul, ©overnmentAdvocate fpr the respondents No. 1 to 4. fc. ORDER (Passed on 29th of August, 2006) 1. The petitioner, who was working as Head Cashier in Union Bank of India at satellite Branch, Damapur, District Kabirdham (C.6.), made a complaint to the Police Station on 12/4/2005 (Annexure-P/1), that a sum of Rs. 1,13,020/- has been stolen from Bank'ssafe, urfiich was under controt of the petiti'oner. 2. The Police investigated the case and informed to the Branch AAanager of the Bank by letter dated 27.11.2005 (Annexure- P/7) that there wws no theft found as reported by the - 2 " /3^\ -^ -k petitioner. It seems to be a case of defalcation. On the basis of the said report, the departmental enquiry has besn initiated to find out as to how the ajm of Rs. 1,13,020/- was missing from the Bank's safe. L^arned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tiiat the petitioner being a complainant con not be held responsible for defalcation or remova! of the above stated nmount from the Bcmk's safe. 4. In this petition, the petitioner prays that fresh enquiry/investigation be directed to be made and the petitioner bs granted sufficient opportunity before the departmental enquiry/investigation conducted by the management of respondents No. 5 to 8. 5. From bare perusal of ths dismissal intimation dated 27.11.2005, it appears that on the basis of appropriate investigation the investi9atin9 officer submitted his report. There is no atlegation of malafide against the Investigating Officer by the petitioner. In that event, it is not necessary to direct re-investigation of the complaint made to the Potice Station by the petitioner. The observation made in the dismissal intimation report as we!l as the facts brought on record -t+iat the department is condueting department enquiry to fix •t+ie responsibility for missing of the amount of Subhash -3- •»!<'• Rs. 1,13,020/- from the Bank's safe, there is no justification in directing fresh investigation. The petitioner would certainly have sufficient opportunity before department enquiry/investigation. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 'te.'