IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11858 of 2006 BINOD RAM Versus THE CHAIRMAN,CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 3. 27.08.2008 For a fraudulent withdrawal from an inoperative account of a customer from Nirmali Branch, petitioner, a Head Cashier was proceeded departmentally. Two sets of charges were drawn up against him and finding of guilt was recorded by the enquiring officer. Based on the enquiry report and the findings, the disciplinary authority in his wisdom decided to impose punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits without disqualification from future employment. The order of punishment has also come to be affirmed by the appellate authority. In the present writ application these orders have been challenged by the petitioner. After several submissions the main contention of the petitioner boils down more to a mercy jurisdiction rather than a substantive challenge to the order of punishment. This emanates from the fact that it is his submission that the petitioner has a clean service record and there is nothing adverse against him in the entire service career except for the present and only act of omission committed by him and on realizing his folly he deposited money with the bank. This according to the petitioner should be a ground for the respondents to take a sympathetic view of the matter. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondents and perusing the records prima facie the Court is satisfied that the hands of the respondents have been forced in the given facts which emerged in - 2 - the enquiry. A Head Cashier of the bank cannot be allowed to commit aberration of the kind which not only created embarrassment but also dented the image of the bank and the branch in question. This is one of the consideration why this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment passed against the petitioner. However, the respondents may verify his service records and if his past service records do not show any negativity or punishment of any kind having been imposed upon the petitioner then irrespective of the order in question they may consider imposing another punishment on the petitioner if he has an impeccable record. It is clarified that the discretion in this regard is left totally with the respondents and the present order is in no way reflection on the merit of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner in this regard. The Writ application stands disposed of with the above observation. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)