COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 6633/2001 (Old No. 3190/1995) Virendra Kumar, Gupta, S/o Late Sri M.R. Gupta, R/o District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Uttarkashi. ........Petitioner Versus 1. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Sandila House, Kaiserbagh, Lucknow, Through its Secretary. 2. Secretary, Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Sandila House, Kaiserbagh, Lucknow. 3. Secretary/General Manager, Uttarkashi District Cooperative Bank Ltd., .......Respondents Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Seema Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 3. Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. 18th February, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 3.7.1993 contained as Annexure 74 to the writ petition. The petitioner was chargesheeted vide Annexure 4 and following charges were framed against the petitioner:- (i) That you are working on the collection counter at Uttarkashi branch of the bank. On 19.9.92, You deposited a cheque amounting to Rs. 4987.00 in the account of your wife Smt. Rajni Gupta and you yourself made entries in the savings account book whereas the entries ought to have been made by the concerned accounts clerk and not by you. (ii) That on 23.9.92, debit voucher of 11 cheques amounting to Rs. 15,884.00 in savings account no. 5351 were made by you and the same were handed over to the savings accounts clerk for making the entries in the account, whereas you were aware that the account did not have the sufficient balance. (iii) That on 19.9.92 with the intention to debit the above cheques, you put no. ‘1’ before the amount of Rs. 4987.00 and thus changed the said amount to Rs. 14987.00 In the same manner, you put the digit ‘1’ before balance amount of Rs. 6338.00 and changed to Rs. 16338.00. (iv) Since the abovementioned savings account was in the name of your wife and you had been making unauthorized entries in it and in this manner you were involved in the above illegal act, for which you have been found guilty. 2. After framing the charge, department enquiry was held and charges were found proved against the petitioner. 3. I have examined the record carefully. I find that the charges have been found proved and the charges are such a grave in nature that order of dismissal ought to have been passed. But taking a lenient view only three increments with cumulative effect have been stopped and an adverse entry has been given. 4. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh