CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.410 Of 1995 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ARUN KUMAR SINGH, SON OF BIRENDRA NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALKALIPUR, P.O. AND P.S. VIDYAPATI NAGAR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR -----------------(Petitioner) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR, THE NATIONAL CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. BETTIAH. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 3. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. ----------------(Respondents) ----------- For The Petitioner : M/s Tej Bahadur Singh, Gyan Shankar, Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocates. For the Bank : M/s P.K. Verma, Sr. Adv., S.R. Sharan, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, AC to AAG-8. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the National Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Bettiah(hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as clerk-cum-cashier in the Chanpatia branch of the Bank. He is aggrieved by the order dated 26.5.1994 passed by the Managing Director of the bank contained in Anneuxre-5 to this application, whereunder he has been dismissed from service on the charge that he defalcated a sum of Rs.2,95,485-14/-. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that for similar charge of defalcation First Information Report bearing Chanpatia P.S. Case No.130 of 1990 dated 17.11.1990, Annexure-2 was registered. - 2 - After completion of investigation in the said criminal case charge sheet was submitted and the matter is pending trail. Besides the charge of defalcation petitioner is also alleged to have remained absent from the headquarter during the period of suspension, for which he was not paid subsistence allowance. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the dismissal order with reference to the manner in which the inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer as according to him the Inquiry Officer ought not to have himself compared the signature of the account holder on the disputed cheque/withdrawal form and comparison should have been made by the handwriting expert but as the Inquiry Officer did not seek any opinion of the handwriting expert and himself proceeded to compare the signature of the account holder over the cheque/withdrawal form and concluded that cheque/withdrawal form was passed by the petitioner without being satisfied that the cheque/withdrawal form was genuine. Such approach of the Enquiry Officer according to the learned counsel for the petitioner does not inspire confidence and this Court in appreciation of such erroneous approach of the Inquiry Officer should set aside the findings recorded in the inquiry report dated 21.1.1994, Annexure-4 as also the impugned dismissal order dated 26.5.1994, Annexure-5. 4. I am not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner as it is within the discretion of the Enquiry Officer to either examine the cheque/withdrawal form himself or to refer them to the handwriting expert for opinion. A criminal case in regard to the same defalcation is pending trial in the criminal court, - 3 - accordingly, the writ application is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to approach the disciplinary authority to review the dismissal order in the light of the findings recorded in the criminal case, provided petitioner is acquitted of the charge of defalcation on merits after scanning the evidence produced in support of the charge. The disciplinary authority should reconsider the dismissal order in the light of the findings of acquittal, if at all is earned by the petitioner in the criminal case by giving due weight to the findings of acquittal. In case, petitioner earns clean acquittal, the other charge of dereliction of duty and absence during the period of suspension will not come in his way in securing reconsideration of the impugned dismissal order. Patna high Court Dated 29th April, 2010 NAFR/Rajesh (V.N.Sinha, J.)