THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C V RAMULU Writ Petition No.2381 OF 2005 DT. 14.2.2011 Between: K Mallikarjun Rao … Petitioner And The Nellore Dist Coop Central Bank Ltd and another … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P Sridhar Reddy Counsel for respondent: Mr K Muralidhar Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C V RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO. 2381 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings VCAT/ESTT/2003-04 dated 4.10.2004 dismissing the petitioner from service as Staff Assistant in Nellore District Cooperative Central Bank Limited as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. It appears the petitioner while working as Staff Assistant was served with a charge memo dated 22.3.2004 alleging that he had misappropriated the funds of the bank by using his official status intentionally. The allegation against the petitioner is that while working as Cashier, on 11.7.2003 he had received an amount of Rs.1,73,265/- including commission @ Rs.1.50 per Rs.1000/- for issuance of 7 pay orders of different denominations, however, in respect of pay order bearing No.354232 for Rs.35,053/- he had colluded with others and tampered the amount as Rs.25,053/- on pay application form, cashier scroll, Manager scroll and counter foil with a malafide intention and personal gain. According to the respondents, if the amount of Rs.25,053/- was received for said purchase order bearing No. 354232, the commission of Rs.38/- only would have been collected @ Rs.1.50 per thousand. Whereas the petitioner in his explanation contends that no doubt the application form for pay order shows an amount of Rs.35,053/- but since a bundle of Rs.10,000/- was found with number of cut-notes, the same was returned and in the pay order the amount was altered as Rs.25,053/- and the same was issued and he has not committed any mistake. It is further stated that without any reason, the respondents are making an issue as to collection of commission of Rs.53 instead of Rs.38 and except that there is no other complaint whatsoever against him, even from the customer or anybody else on behalf of the customer. It is also stated by learned counsel for petitioner that immediately on noticing the mistake, the petitioner has returned the deficit amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest vide challan dated 28.4.2004. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the enquiry conducted by the respondents is not valid and basic principles of conducting domestic enquiry were not followed. Be that as it may, the charge against the petitioner is trivial in nature and there is also no pecuniary loss caused to the bank, hence, imposition of major punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Normally, this Court in this type of cases, remand the matter for reconsideration, but in the present case since already seven years have lapsed, no fruitful purpose would be served in ordering for reconsideration, more particularly against a trivial allegation and I deem it appropriate to give quietus to the litigation at this stage. In the above facts and circumstances the impugned order of dismissal dated 4.10.2004 is set aside and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with other attendant benefits except backwages. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU,J DATE: 14.2.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C V RAMULU Writ Petition No.2381 OF 2005 DT. 14.2.2011