HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pfetition No. 499 of 2002 Petitioner: K. P. Dewangan, S/o Shri H. P. Dewaugan, ayed about 42 years, Cashier-cum-Clerk, Regional Rural Bauk, Brauch - Khadgaon, H.O. Kshetrya GraTnin Baak, Ra^arh (C.G.). Versus Respondents: 1. The Ra^arh Kshetriya GBamin Baak, Ra^arh, Tltrough Chauiaaa, Head office, Station Road, Ra^arh. 2. Board of Directors, Through Chairmaa, The Raigarh Kshetriya Graaun Baak, Raigarh (C.G.). Sin^e BencA: Hon'ble Mr, Justice Satish K. AgnUiotri. Shri K. N. Naude, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pritinker Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for fhe Respoadents. QRALORDER (31at Januaiy, 2006) The foUowing order ofthe Court was passed by Satish K. AguUiotri, J. 1. The petitiouer was workmg as Cashier-cum-Clerk at Haxiurpur Branch ofKeshetnya Gramin Bank, Raigarh (for short 'the Bank'). He was chai^e sheeted on 26.7.1997 to the effect fhat the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3800/- fiioni the chest of the Bank on 20.3.1996. It was alleged that on 19.3.1996 a siun ofRs, 17053.70 in cash was found at fhe tune ofclosing of the Badk, as per the cash balance. The enquuy was held, the petitioner had admitted his guilt, and accordingly subniitted representation 1.10.1997 (Armexure A/l) to the Chairman ofthe -f^ ^J '. —— ^--—' —— "—. . 1.^...,^. •A0[3q ssttuoq^nB sip Aq papuooai S^SB} jo sSmpTtg aip. ipiM aoaaiajiatui AUB joj ]]BO ^ou ssop ^i 'qone sy •j[3aoi(pad aip iq panptmnoo ^onpuoosim aip o^ a^BuoRJodcMdsip yfa si pasodtin ^uatuqyiund aqj, •AtUOTp.nB a^BQaddB aq:). SB l(3M SB ^UOTRnB ATBIII[dpSIp 'A).uoq»nBSnuinbaa gq^ Aq pimoj - ^piiaimoiioo usaq SBq jsnoppsd aq^ jo VfrcS o^ SB S^OBJ jo giitpug aip asBo ^aasaid aq^ aj "s^o^ jo sSuipag aig ipiM gauajiai.ut moLg jfasft uiKgai ppioqs Eipui jo uo^n^sao3 sfy. jo tXLl^'W 3{OTtJV -ispun psfS TIORff3d B UI noti.oipsunf AreiKpioKqxa K).I Smsioiiaxa aifqA ^inoQ siip yst^ MBI jo ssidpaud pswas HSA si ^] -t, •^uoipnB sfBfpdSB aip auojaq SB naM s« ^uoipne ABUT[dTosip aip. aicgsq Ajnibua aift ui ^noqSncuip. MSIA taaiusi joj paXaid seq jaaoprtad aqjL ffm3 siq psfffaxpB jatioi^ad aqi. qi.eaiq STIIBS 3q»^B pire -lagBUBy^ qouBjg aip jo uoissTOuad aip TRIM ^unouiB sixp luue.ipqflA seq jauopip.sd aq^ ^Bip s^iuiqns jauoifttad ary. jsy psTinoo paiuByi •g •Sfi.iovffma &Bui[dpsip aip Aq passed jspio aip. ppqdn pitB leaddB aip paesiuisip (e/V a-mxauiiv) TOOS'S'Z pSTBp -ispio BI.I Xq snoTtoana jo pieog aqj, 'iBaddB KI sjcqoana jo piieog aip aiojaq A)uoq^nB Areuiidiosip aip Aq paesBd japio pres sip pa8n3i{Bqo jsaottpad aqj, '(yaio-mna-jaiqsBo) jfed 3Tp JO SIBOS 3TIIR aq^ ui aSe^s ^SSAOI aq^ cq jauopp^ad aip SaR-iaAai ^nauiqsTand pasodun (t'/a ainxauav) 666T"S'TS ps^P jiapio siq jCq A).uoq^nB ABiii[diosTp aqj, •Snpxado aip in 9661 'E'IZ ao punoj SBM -/008£ "sy }° aSBr»joqs B ^Bip -onoflltad aip jo noissimpB aip. jo sisBq aip. uo paACud panoj SBA ^T Aiinbaa uo •g •anqiy ut 35[B^siui qons ^Ttamoo cq ^oa 8ttp[B^i3pan srq pa^iuqns piie Aoiiaiaai joj paAjd psq jauopitad Sfy. q3re[A 111 3[itEg 5. In view of the facts and circuinslances of ffae case when the petitioner has admitted his guilt and has prayed for leiuency ia awardiiig the puuishment, the rcspondents may consider the request of the petitfoner for inodification of fhe purushinent awarded. 6, In view of flie foregoing, the petition is duposed pf finatly. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur