HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 219 of 2005 (S/B) Rakesh Aeron. ……..Petitioner Versus The Chief General Manager And another. …….Respondents Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondent/Bank. Dated: February 17, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh,C.J. (Oral) In a disciplinary proceeding, petitioner was awarded a punishment of dismissal. On statutory appeal, the said order stood confirmed. In the present writ petition, petitioner seeks to challenge those two orders. 2. Petitioner was a Manager of a Branch of the respondent-Bank. In a charge sheet dated 30th December, 2003, various misconducts on the part of the petitioner were attributed. Those were inquired into by an Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer found that all those charges stand proved. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner. Petitioner gave his response thereto. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, upon consideration of the enquiry report and the response of the petitioner, passed the order of dismissal. Petitioner then preferred an Appeal and thereby highlighted many a factors. Those were considered, and thereupon the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. 2 3. In the present writ petition, it is being contended principally, as was contended before the Appellate Authority, that the Bank did not suffer any loss by reason of the conduct on the part of the petitioner, highlighted in the charge sheet. A look at the charge sheet, would amply demonstrate that the allegations therein were not pertaining to loss suffered or to be suffered by the Bank. Those were pertaining to breach of confidence by the petitioner. It was proved that the petitioner allowed loans to be given to persons who were not entitled to the loans. It was proved that the purpose of grant of those loans was primarily to enable the loanees to misappropriate subsidies granted in respect of those loans. It was proved that persons, adjudged entitle to subsidies and loans under certain scheme by the Authorities Competent to adjudge the same, did not get the loans or subsidies but the same were usurped by someone else through the assistance of the petitioner. The modus operandi was only to replace the photographs of the persons entitled to loans by the photographs of the persons who obtained the loans alongwith subsidies. In some cases, the loans were shown to have been written off or paid by Corporation, but that the same were paid by the Corporation, while there was no such proof, the same were written off under Authority of the Bank, was not substantiated. The fact however, remains that the subsidy that was given under the scheme, reached the wrong hand in all the cases and this could only happen, as appears from the record, with the assistance of the petitioner. In the circumstances, as it appears to us, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was a breach of trust on the part of the petitioner. 3 4. Petitioner in the capacity as a Manager of the said branch of the Bank, not only had a fiduciary obligation towards the Bank, but he was also in a position of a public trustee. Petitioner having failed to conduct his affairs in the manner, a public trustee is required to conduct, we see no reason why the Bank could not disassociate the petitioner by severing relationship with him, which could only be done in the manner, the same has been done. We, accordingly, see no reason to interfere. 5. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 17.02.2011 NCM: