IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10706 of 2009 SURESH PRASAD MALAKAR. SON OF MURLIDHAR MALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SOHARIPATTI BUXAR, POLICE STATION AND TOWN BUXAR, DISTRICT BUXAR. Versus 1. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, 8TH FLOOR, 7-BHIKHAJI CAMMA PLACE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CIRCLE HEAD, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICER RAGAL HOTEL, 2ND FLOOR, EAST RAMNA ROAD, ARAH, BHOJPUR THORUGH APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICER, RAGAL HOTEL, 2ND FLOOR, EAST RAMNA ROAD, ARAH, BHOJPUR. 4. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT SECTION, REGIONAL OFFICE, ARAH. For the Petitioner : M/s Jagdish Prasad No.1, Alok Kumar, Virendra Kumar, Advocates For the Bank : M/s Prashant Vedasen, Vivekanand Singh, Anjani Kr. Mishra, Advocates and Mr. Saba Ahmad, Manager, PNB. ----------- 05. 23.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties and Sri Saba Ahmad, Manager, Punjab National Bank(hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served the Bank on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Barkagaon Branch of the Bank. He has filed this writ application questioning the order dated 13.9.2008, Annexure-8 whereunder he has been removed from the service of the Bank in the light of the findings recorded in the enquiry report dated 3.10.2007, Annexure-5 with superannuation benefits i.e. pension, provident fund, gratuity and without disqualification from future employment in terms of paragraph-6(b) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002. Earlier petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 6.3.2007, Annexure-1, english version whereof is contained in Annexure-11 to this application. The Enquiry Officer having conducted the enquiry submitted report dated 3.10.2007, Annexure-5, whereunder charge Nos.1A, B, 2, 3, 6A to - 2 - E and 8A, B were found proved. Charge No.4E was found partly proved. Charge Nos.5, 8C, D were found not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, in consideration of the enquiry report under order dated 13.9.2008, Annexure-8 punished the petitioner by directing his removal with superannuation benefits. Appeal filed against the said order also failed, as is evident from appellate order dated 25.2.2009, Annexure-9 to this application. 3. By filing the present writ application petitioner impugned the removal, appellate order on the ground that Enquiry Officer while considering charge Nos.1A and B relied on the statement of the borrowers recorded before the Vigilance Officer without giving the petitioner opportunity to cross-examine either the borrowers who were examined by the Vigilance Officer or the Vigilance Officer and thereby principles of natural justice was violated causing serious prejudice to the petitioner by not cross-examining the borrowers from whose account he is alleged to have drawn money by misusing the withdrawal form submitted by those borrowers at the time of documentation for grant of term loan. Finding of the enquiry officer in regard to charge No.2 is said to be vitiated on the ground that without giving the petitioner opportunity to satisfy the Enquiry officer that he received Rs.60,000/-, 40,000/-, 30,000/-, 5,000/-, 1500/-, 3252/-, 3252/-, 4600/-, 11000/-, 7500/-, 7000/-, 10,000/- in cash from his relatives on 29.4.2004, 21.5.2004, 11.6.2004, 21.6.2004, 29.6.2004, 5.7.2004, 5.7.2004, 2.8.2004, 4.8.2004, 6.8.2004, 9.8.2004 and 3.9.2004 respectively and deposited the amount in his current account, finding has been recorded - 3 - that petitioner made unusual credit entries in his current account. Had the petitioner been given opportunity to examine the relatives he would have satisfied the Enquiry Officer that his relatives returned back the loan, which petitioner had given them earlier together with the source from where the relatives obtained the amount on the dates on which petitioner deposited the amount in his cash credit account. For failure of the Enquiry Officer to give opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy that he granted loan to his relatives and the relatives returned the loan amount with the source of their income which was deposited by the petitioner in his current account, the finding of the Enquiry Officer as regard charge No.2, in my opinion, appears to be vitiated on the ground of lack of adequate opportunity being granted to the petitioner to defend himself. 4. Finding of the Enquiry Officer in regard to charge No.3 is also vitiated as the Enquiry Officer has found that the current land receipt of the borrower in whose favour KCC limit of Rs.1.15 lakhs was sanctioned on 18.7.2003 has not been furnished, but it appears the current land receipt in the name of father and grandfather of the borrower was furnished, as such, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the current land receipt of the borrower was not furnished appears to be too technical and misconceived. Finding of the Enquiry Officer partly proving charge No.4E also does not appear to be correct as the borrower, who levelled the allegation was never examined in support of the said charge. Charge Nos.6A to E found proved in regard to the settlement of death claim also appears to be technical in nature as the heirs of the person whose death claim was settled by the petitioner never made any - 4 - complaint about the settlement. Charge Nos.8A and B that amount was found withdrawn from the saving fund account No.5 of Sri Ram Shankar Sah and KCC account No.20 of Sri Shiv Kumar Singh was also found proved against the petitioner without examining those borrowers, as such, while proving those charges opportunity to cross examine the borrowers was required to be given to the petitioner. 5. For the illegalities noticed above by me in proving charge Nos.1A, B, 2, 3 4E, 6A to E and 8A, B the impugned punishment order dated 13.9.2008, Annexure-8 is vitiated and is accordingly set aside. The appellate authority has also not considered the aforesaid illegalities in the enquiry report and the punishment order, as such, the appellate order dated 25.2.2009, Annexure-9 is also not in accordance with law and is also set aside. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated by the Bank with direction to continue the proceeding in the light of the charge sheet dated 6.3.2007 and examine the borrowers from whose account petitioner drew the amount by misusing the withdrawal form taken from those borrowers at the time of documentation. The Enquiry officer should also grant opportunity to the petitioner to establish the factum of grant of loan to the relatives with further opportunity to the relatives to establish the source from where they procured money to return the loan amount to the petitioner on the date of deposit. While conducting the enquiry in compliance of my order, the Bank is also at liberty to continue the enquiry with regard to other charges which were not found proved by the earlier Enquiry Officer. In the event, the borrowers from whose account petitioner is alleged to have drawn misusing the withdrawal - 5 - form support the charge, the appropriate punishment order be passed in case of the petitioner. The arrears of salary from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement shall be subject to the result of the enquiry. For the present, petitioner shall draw salary with effect from the date of his reinstatement until conclusion of the enquiry, which must be concluded as early as possible, in any case within six months of the date of reinstatement of the petitioner. 6. With the observation and direction aforesaid the writ application is disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)