CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6006 OF 1996 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ----------- Satya Narain Prasad son of Late Harihar Prasad, resident of village Maujhan Chapra, Police Station Mehsi, District East Champaran ----------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, through the Secretary, Finance Department 2. The Punjab National Bank through its Zonal Manager, Bihar Zone, at Patna 3. The Zonal Manager, Bihar Zone of Punjab National Bank, at Patna 4. The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank at Muzaffarpur 5. The Manager, Motihari Branch of Punjab National Bank, District East Champaran 6. Shri N.K. Mishra, the Enquiry Officer, Regional Office of Punjab National Bank, at Muzaffarpur ---------------------Respondents For The Petitioner :M/s Uma Kant Shukla, Advocate For Bank :M/s Prashana Vedsen & Subhash Chandra Bose, Advocates P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N. Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.1995, Annexure-3 passed by the disciplinary authority, whereunder he has been dismissed from the post of Head Clerk serving in the Motihari Branch of the Bank. He is also aggrieved by the appellate order dated 23.3.1996, Annexure-4, whereunder appeal filed against the dismissal order dated 18.10.1995, Annexure-3 has been rejected. The appellate order was 2 communicated to the petitioner under memo dated 30.3.1996 and is contained in Annexure-4 to this application. 3. It appears, petitioner was proceeded against under charge sheet dated 3.4.1992 alleging that the amounts detailed in Annexure-1 to the charge sheet was received by the petitioner as Head Cashier, but not credited in the account of the party i.e. current account no. 412. Other charge levelled against the petitioner is that the amount shown in Annexure- 2 to the charge sheet was received by the petitioner and shown credited in the account of the party, but the amount credited is less than the amount received by the petitioner. For the aforesaid charge, a complaint was also filed, which was referred to the police for investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. and the police having found the contents of the complaint not true, submitted final form dated 30.9.1993, which was accepted by the C.J.M., Motihari. Later, the contents of the charge sheet dated 3.4.1992 was proved by the Management by examining Management Witness Nos. 1 to 5 and documentary evidence i.e. counter foil, bearing Ext. No. M2 to M18. The Enquiry Officer having examined the contents of the counter foil recorded a categorical finding under enquiry report dated 6.4.1995 that petitioner did receive the amount shown in Annexure-1 of the charge sheet, but did not credit the same in the parties' account, except two entries dated 22.8.1990 for Rs. 15,000/- and 27.8.1990 for 22,000/-. As regards Annexure-2, it was found by 3 the Enquiry Officer that the amount contained therein has been received by the petitioner, but not credited in the account in its entirety. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner questioned the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer on the ground that without verifying the signature of the petitioner on the counter foil in question by the handwriting expert, the counter foil has been found to have been issued by the petitioner and such finding recorded on the basis of the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence i.e. admitted signature/ initial of the petitioner should not have been relied upon in absence of handwriting expert and such finding is nothing but conjecture. 5. Counsel for the Bank opposed such submission. He submitted that not only the Enquiry Officer, but also the disciplinary authority compared the signature of the petitioner in the counter foil in question with the admitted signature of the petitioner in other documents available in the Bank and such fact would appear from the enquiry report as also from the second show cause notice, Annexure-2 and the petitioner in order to prevent this Court from ascertaining such fact from the enquiry report, did not annex the copy of the enquiry report with the writ petition. 6. I asked the counsel for the parties to produce the enquiry report and in response to my request, the same has been 4 produced and from perusal of the enquiry report, it is evident that the Enquiry Officer had compared the signature of the petitioner in the counter foil with his admitted signature and having compared the two signatures recorded a finding that it was the petitioner, who had received the amount shown in Annexures-1 and 2 and in token of receipt of the amount had issued counter foil in question. Such fact is also evident from the second show cause notice in which the disciplinary authority also compared the signature of the petitioner over the counter foil from his admitted signature. In the circumstances, there is no difficulty for this Court to conclude that it was the petitioner, who received the amount shown in Annexures-1 and 2 to the charge sheet from the party concerned, but did not credit the amount in the current account of the party. Failure of the authorities to pursue the criminal case shall not grant any advantage to the petitioner as charge of misappropriation levelled against him has been duly proved in the enquiry proceeding. 7. Having perused the enquiry report and the findings recorded therein, I am satisfied that the charge of defalcation levelled against the petitioner has been successfully established against him and there does not appear to be any infirmity in the impugned dismissal order dated 18.10.1995, Annexure3 as also the order dated 23.3.1996, Annexure-4 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 5 8. The writ application has no merit, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. The copy of the enquiry report produced is taken on record. Patna High Court Dated 24th June, 2010 NAFR (Arjun) ( V.N. Sinha, J.)