.,;i.*^; 03 IN THEHIGHCOUFT OFJUOiCATUREATBiLASPUR, mTIONER WglT PETITiQN No. 30H OF 20Q2 Vcrsus, Sushii Kumar Nayak, aged about 39 years,S/oR>.L.Nayak,,wofkjng.as Cashier Gum Clerk in Raigarh ; Regionai Rurai Bahk, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) KtBI i£"%ST The Raigarh Regional Rurat Bank, Raigarh through its Cl^afrman, Station Road, Raigarh (ChJ»^ttjsgarh) : WRIT INDERARTICLE 226/227 OFTI ,' 'I' XI-HC-78 d-wi •^liqi<W;WTil'{1<l<B, fi<SI'My<< ffpre?T^I:if'?F "" I"""" 3II^9T'R^(<3^61^) 31 ^200^ aii^iTTOR^i* (CTairtSTBqm g^aTWvf^sf^w ttie .0$ instru<ttions 23.09.2005 Mr. Sameer Behar, tearned The petitioner was appoin(ed Regional Rurat Bank, Raigarhln issued show cause noticeon 02.( fivecharges of violating the instru4tio interfered with the handing over o\ remaining unauthorisedly absent submitted false document. on 01.09.1992 (Annexure P-5) the excess amount with the State sheet has been issued on misconduct ofcarrying excess limit. The enquiry was conductedl the enquiry. The Enquiry.OfRc^r, submitted report on 02.06.1995. petitioner were found proved. Th^ by order dated 25.03.1996/ 08.04. | one year Increment with cumulativ|e an appeal beforethe Board of D| Raigarh. The appeal was also After having heard perusing the records.lam ofthe authority to consider the cas4 approprlate punishment, particular|y qiiti{n<ill iiinT^lfs'd •(Fjit^it ^ari^tan^CT Subse|quently wl|iereby 1t2 casn (;ounsel for the petitioner. as Cashier-cum-Clerk in the year 1982. The petitioner was i.1992 (Annexure P-3) containing of the joint custody system, the charge of branch, Khamhar, Ifrom 10.08.1991 to 17.08.1991, charge sheet was issued tt was directed to deposit pank of India. One more charge 112.10.1992 (Annexure P-6) for amount beyond the permissible |and the petitioner partjcipated in r, after holding proper enquiry, All charges alleged against the disciplinary authority / chairman 1996 passed an ordertowithhold ulativ|e effect. The petitioner preferred Irectors of Regional Rural Bank, disrtiissed. learrted counsel for the petitioner and \<|iew that the Management has full of misconduct and impose when the enquirywas properly XI-HC-78 \3T2q rq|<.ll«*|,ti>Til<1<1<S, Brtltf3< 32 NINril^ilT^ ^^:..^^ 3II^?Tq^(q^fg6|^) aii^CTwR'ii* aalraiI^STditli'b _.ea^? •aaiiia 8;(?I[8R^lft5T3II$n -^ held and the charges alleged again^ proved. The order passed by the| confirmed by the appellate authoril] punishment withholding one insreme^ !n view ofthe foregoing, 1 passed by the disciplinary authority Accordingly, the petition stan< Consequently, all pending of. . i^t the petitioner hacl been found disciplinary authority has been l|y. The punishment isa minor tt with cumulative effeet. ^m of the view that the order tienot interfered with. |s dismissed. a|)plications also stand disposed <ci<i(n<ni<ii*inl*Fls'^xl>n^it lisif^iaii^fl Sd/- SatishK. Judge s- ^ ^ ^ i9z