IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4604 of 1999 Date of decision: 19th August, 2010 Karam Chand … Petitioner Versus State Bank of Patiala and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner was appointed as a Rural Development Officer in the State Bank of Patiala on 15th May, 1985. Subsequently, the nomenclature of ‘Rural Development Officer’ was changed to ‘Assistant Manager’. In the year 1987, the petitioner was punished and his two annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect. On 23rd September, 1993, a chargesheet was served upon the petitioner by the General Manager (I&P) (Disciplinary Authority) of the respondent-Bank. The articles of charge stated that with an ulterior motive in contravention of the instructions contained in the head office Circular, on 3rd February, 1993 the petitioner made an entry of Rs.4,000/- at serial number 15 of his Cash Scroll in token of his having passed a withdrawal form for payment. The amount was purportedly drawn from the savings account of one Smt.Ram Piari. Similarly, the petitioner had also withdrawn an amount of Rs.4,000/- from the account of one Gurmit Civil Writ Petition No.4604 of 1999 Singh. For contravention of the office circular and misconduct on the part of the petitioner, an enquiry was held and the petitioner was removed from service vide order (Annexure P-4) dated 13th May, 1995. In the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order of removal from service (Annexure P-4) along with order dated 30th March, 1996 (Annexure P-6), whereby the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was upheld. A perusal of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report (Annexure P-2) reveals that not only the proper procedure was followed but the evidence was appreciated in consonance with the rules of appreciation. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out one part of the evidence, which according to him, could not be considered by the Enquiry Officer is the statement made by Raghbir Chand PW-7, who stated that in a farewell party organized on 28th May, 1993, the petitioner under the influence of Alcohol, had made a confession. It is submitted that this confession, being not voluntary, could not be considered as an incriminating circumstance. I have perused the report of the Enquiry Officer. It has taken into consideration the totality of circumstances, testimony of various witnesses and the entries made in the handwriting of the petitioner on various documents to hold that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though it is held that the petitioner is guilty of the charges, the punishment of removal from service is too harsh. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner is also to be rejected. In the banking sector, the employees are expected to ensure transparency and truthfulness in dealing with the accounts of the holders, who not only entrust their money but also expect that their accounts shall be maintained properly. In the present case, the petitioner was having less than ten years of service, 2 Civil Writ Petition No.4604 of 1999 therefore, taking totality of circumstances into consideration, the sentence awarded is also adequate. The appellate authority has also affirmed the punishment given by the disciplinary authority. Hence, no fault can be found with the procedure followed or the reasoning adopted by the authorities and thus, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 19, 2010 rps 3