THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C V RAMULU Writ Petition No.3418 OF 2011 DT. 15.2.2011 Between: B Obul Reddy … Petitioner And A.P. Grameena Bank, rep by its Chairman Kadapa and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.S. Rajasekhar Counsel for respondent: Sri K Srinivasa Murthy The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C V RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 3418 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against a show cause notice, in Ref No.79/HRD&IR/PP/0380/11 dated 14.1.2011, issued by the second respondent, directing the petitioner to appear before him for personal hearing on 24.1.2011 at 11.00 A.M. and to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of ‘removal from service of the bank which shall not be a disqualification for future employment’ shall not be imposed on him for the charges leveled against him, vide charge sheet dated 11.9.2007. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has put in 31 years of clean and unblemished service and while so, he was issued with a charge sheet dated 11.9.2007. The 4 charges leveled against the petitioner reads as under; Charge No.1 : That you had siphoned the amounts from the UCD head of A/c pertaining to various depositors on various dates, by forging their signatures/affixing forged thumb impressions of various depositors, passing the debits by yourself, though not vested with such powers, thus defrauded the depositors as well as the Bank… Charge No.2: you had unauthorisedly transferred amounts from UCD head of A/c pertaining to the following depositors to some other irrelevant SB A/c inoperative SB A/c without the consent of depositors and siphoned the amounts through withdrawals by forging the signatures of respective saving bank depositors/affixing forged thumb impressions…. Charge No.3 : That you had siphoned the amounts from the UCD head A/c pertaining to the deceased depositors on various dates, by forging their signatures/affixing forged thumb impressions, passing the debits by yourself, though not vested with such powers, thus defrauded the depositors as well as the bank… Charge No. 4 :You had credited the inoperative SB A/c No. 11551 pertaining to Sri G Vasudeva Reddy, with some irrelevant amounts by unauthorisedly transferring from UCD A/c/OBC proceeds of unknown beneficiary and siphoned the amounts by fraudulently withdrawing from the A/c by forging the signatures of the depositor….. The enquiry officer, on conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his report dated 24.7.2010 holding that charges 2 and 4 are not proved, and charge No.1 is partly proved and charge no.3 is proved. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, under Charge No.1 there were 23 accounts out of which petitioner was held to be guilty of 7 accounts and the nature of the misconduct alleged is that after obtaining the loans against the FDRs the individuals have not claimed the 25 % of the amounts retained with the bank even after their maturity since they are meager. Under charge no.3, there were three accounts, one among them is of a minor and after attaining majority, he had claimed the balance amount and in the meanwhile it appears the guardian seems to have died. In respect of other two accounts, the charge is that the amounts were drawn fraudulently by the petitioner but it appears the minor in respect of first account and major in respect of second account have filed affidavits stating that they had withdrawn the amounts, as such, the question of forgery and drawing the amounts by the petitioner, does not arise. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, even in respect of charge no.1, about 6 to 7 affidavits were filed by individuals saying that petitioner is not guilty of the charge and they themselves have withdrawn the amounts. It is further stated that in the criminal case after investigation the police has filed a charge sheet holding that none of the charges were proved and all the individual account holders involved in respect of those accounts have filed affidavits to the effect that they had withdrawn the amounts voluntarily and petitioner has not forged their signatures or misappropriated the amounts. However, learned counsel appearing for respondents/bank strenuously contended that the writ petition is directed against a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to attend for personal hearing and as against said show cause notice, writ petition is not maintainable. From the above, it is seen that if what is stated by the petitioner is true, proposing major punishment of removal seems to be not proper and proportionate to the charges alleged against the petitioner. Once there is ample evidence available on record to show that petitioner has not drawn the amounts, the question of issuing a show cause notice proposing major punishment of removal from service is not warranted. However, it would be pre-mature to come to a conclusion, that the disciplinary authority may not consider the evidence produced by the petitioner positively. It is always open for the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate decision after considering the evidence available on record and the gravity of the charges and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ C V RAMULU,J DATE: 15.2.2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C V RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 3418 OF 2011 DATE: 15.2.2010