LPA No. 989 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 989 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 05.03.2010 Mohan Singh Malhi ....Appellant. Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present appeal, order impugned is dated 7.8.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in the Gobindpur Branch of the Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nawanshahar; when the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager at Gobindpur Branch, complaints were made against him by depositors in respect of embezzlement made by him in their accounts; the respondent – bank appointed Senior Manager and Assistant LPA No. 989 of 2009 2 Manager to conduct a fact-finding inquiry; petitioner was issued notice to submit his explanation within 10 days vide letter dated 30.11.2005 on the fact-finding report; the petitioner did not submit any reply to show cause; the petitioner continuously remained absent for a long period; he was charge-sheeted, which was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.1.2006; no reply was submitted to the charge-sheet nor the petitioner joined duties; vide resolution dated 12.4.2006, Senior Manager of the Bank was appointed to conduct regular enquiry and it was also resolved to get an FIR lodged against the delinquent employee in respect of the amount embezzled by him. The petitioner challenged the resolution before the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh by a revision petition, which was dismissed being not maintainable; order of the Additional Registrar was put under challenge in CWP 12477 of 2006. This Court set aside the order of the revisional authority and directed the revisional authority to decide the same within three months. Thereafter, revision was disposed of vide order dated 17.1.2007. The petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer sent registered letter in order to give him opportunity to submit his case; thereafter, the petitioner did not appear. Hence notices were got published in Daily Ajit forming the petitioner to come present before the Enquiry Officer. Even then the petitioner did not attend the enquiry. Hence the Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty of the withdrawing money from the accounts by forging signatures of the depositors. The other charge of absence from duty since 15.11.2005 was also found to be proved; on the basis of enquiry report, the Board of Directors vide resolution dated 11.6.2007 proposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Show cause notice was again issued LPA No. 989 of 2009 3 regarding the proposed punishment to the petitioner; the petitioner filed his reply to the same; the Board of Directors after considering the reply, dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 24.8.2007. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the accord. 4. Undisputedly, the appellant was found guilty of withdrawing Rs.78,000/- from the account of Sh. Sucha Singh son of Shri Dilbag Singh. Undisputedly, the petitioner was also found guilty of transferring Rs.51,000/- from the account of Smt. Amarjit Kaur, who had gone to Spain, to his own account. On being asked, Mr. Kang, learned counsel for the appellant stated that although, money of both the transactions was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner, however, the petitioner is not involved. 5. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. A bank official is supposed to act as a trustee of the depositors/clients. A bank official who does not act as a trustee or who commits breach of trust by transferring the money in his account, he needs no sympathy from any corner nor any hypertechnicalities should come to rescue him. Once transaction is admitted, nothing more is required to be explained. 6. Mr. Kang argued that sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. We do not agree with Mr. Kang. Undisputedly, the petitioner was supposed to be present before the enquiry officer on 27.7.2007. Undisputedly, the petitioner was informed by registered letters to submit his reply. However, despite of those registered letters, the petitioner failed to submit his reply and also did not appear. Thereafter, notice was got published in the newspaper. Even then the LPA No. 989 of 2009 4 petitioner did not appear nor filed any reply. Not only this, thereafter the petitioner was asked to show cause against the proposed punishment. 7. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the present matter. The appeal is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 05.03.2010 sk.