PRAFULLA KUMAR DAS Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA AND ORS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
PRAFULLA KUMAR DAS
United Bank Of India And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
Nelson Sailo, J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das for the writ petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. C. Sarma appearing for the respondent Bank.
(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that he joined the United Bank of India (the Bank) as Cash-cum-General Clerk on 05.05.1997 at the Jowai Branch of the Bank. Thereafter, he was promoted to the rank of Scale-I Officer in the month of June, 1990 and further promoted to Scale-II Officer the month of February, 2002. Between the period, May 2005 to March 2006, he was posted in the Itanagar Branch of the Bank and it is for the misconduct alleged against him during this posting that a departmental proceeding was drawn against him.
(3.) The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 15.09.2007 (Annexure-I) with immediate effect for misconduct alleged to have been committed by him under Regulation 12(1)(a) of the United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (the Regulations). Following his suspension, an explanation was called from him vide communication dated 21.09.2007 (Annexure-II) which was to the effect that while he was posted as Manager in the Itanagar Branch of the Bank from 24.05.2005 to 18.03.2006, he had committed irregularities in the Branch by issuing a delivery order dated 16.02.2006 to one M/s Berial Engineering Private Limited, Guwahati for supply of vehicle i.e., Tata JD-315 Backhoe Loader costing Rs. 18,72,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand) only to one Mr. Tadar Tanaiya. Although the said delivery order was said to have been issued against a loan sanctioned to Shri Tanaiya, the records of the Branch revealed that no such loan was sanctioned/disbursed to him and as such, the delivery order was issued by the petitioner without any valid Term Loan being sanctioned. The vehicle was delivered to the beneficiary on 17.02.2006 on the basis of the delivery order issued by the petitioner and following which, release of payment towards the price of the vehicle supplied was being claimed by the firm. The Bank being exposed to a financial loss for the aforesaid amount besides interest, the petitioner was thus asked to submit his explanation within 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the letter.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.