THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 9538 of 1999 Dated: 29.03.2010 Between: L.Krupa Rao, Prakasam District. … Petitioner And Andhra Bank, Rep., by its General Manager, Central Office, Saifabad and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 9538 of 1999 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 01.04.1999 passed by the 1st respondent in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner herein joined the services of the 1st respondent- Bank on 04.12.1984 in clerical grade. While he was working as a cashier at Podili Branch, Ongole Zone, vide proceedings of the Assistant General Manager, Ongole dated 14.03.1997, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry into certain irregularities allegedly committed by him. Subsequently, charge sheet dated 27.08.1997 was issued framing charges of misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs.96,828.82 p. After conducting the regular enquiry, the 2nd respondent by order dated 01.02.1999 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service of the respondent-Bank. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, though observed that the misconduct committed by the petitioner i.e. the misappropriation of funds was very grave and serious in nature, taking a lenient view of the matter, modified the punishment from dismissal to that of compulsory retirement. The said order dated 01.04.1999 is under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation that the petitioner had misappropriated the amounts was without any basis and the domestic enquiry said to have been conducted by the respondents was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law and therefore, the conclusion of the respondents 1 and 2 that the charges were held proved cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent’s order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement is liable to be set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated into service. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is explained that the documents on behalf of the Management were duly marked as MEX-1 to 41 and 3 witnesses were produced on behalf of the Management. So far as the petitioner was concerned, six documents were marked on his behalf and his defence representative had cross-examined the witnesses of the management. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the written submissions of the Management and the defence, the enquiry Officer had given his report dated 30.05.1998 holding that all the charges were proved. From the counter affidavit, it is clear that the enquiry was conducted by the respondents following due process of law and the petitioner was given ample opportunity at every stage to rebut the allegations in the charge memo. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner had paid the entire misappropriated amount of Rs.97,498.82/- p. on 15.12.1998 itself. Hence, it was rightly concluded that the charges were proved. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that the Rs.97,498.82 p was paid by the petitioner pursuant to the advice made by the Head Office, which was communicated to the petitioner through the Branch Manager, Podili, sought to contend that the petitioner cannot be said to have admitted the guilt merely because the amount was paid. The letter addressed by the Head Office dated 24.09.1998 to the Manager, Podili has been placed before this Court and it is clear from the said letter that the Manager of Podili Branch was advised to recover the misappropriated amount from the petitioner so that the suspension order can be revoked. The said letter did not say anything about the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. No other material could be placed before this Court to show that the petitioner had paid the misappropriated amount on the assurance of the respondents that the disciplinary proceedings would be dropped. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the enquiry was conducted by the respondents giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his defence. The findings recorded by the enquiry Officer are based on proper appreciation of the material available on record and consequently, the order passed by the 1st respondent cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 29.03.2010 KLP