- (1.) The Respondent was employed as a clerk in the Kalindri branch of the Appellant Bank. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 30.8.1988. The two charges against him are extracted below: (i) On 14.10.1987, you disclosed the balance of SB Account No. 1025 of Shri Dharamchand Nathaji lying in in-operative account to an unidentified person posing himself as the said account holder though the person was not having even Pass Book of that account. This disclosure of secrecy led a fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 6,000/- from the said account thereby putting the bank into loss. (ii) On 14.10.1987, you have advised Shri I.M. Rawal, the counter clerk handling Savings Banks ledgers to transfer the balance lying in account number 1025 in the name of Shri Dharam Chand Nathaji from in-operative Savings Bank ledger to that of operative ledgers without first obtaining the permission of the Branch Manager which is a pre-requirement in all such cases. It is further alleged that you have collected the withdrawal form purported to have been signed by the depositor, handed over the same to Shri I.M. Rawal, the counter clerk, obtained token and after it was passed for payment by the Branch Manager, obtained payment from paying cashier Shri S.R. Meghwal The real depositor has subsequently complained that the signature on withdrawal form was forged and the matter is now under police investigation. The charge-sheet followed a preliminary enquiry by one H. S. Sharma, an officer of the Appellant bank, in which the Respondent broadly admitted the facts constituting the subject matter of the two charges.
(2.) A joint inquiry was held in respect of the charges against the Respondent and two others namely I.M. Rawal and S.R. Meghwal. Several witnesses were examined. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 12.6.1989 holding that both the charges against the Respondent were proved. He also held that the charges against I.M. Rawal and S.R. Meghwal were also proved. The disciplinary authority considered the inquiry report. He was of the view that on the material placed in the inquiry, the Respondent was not guilty of the first charge. He, however, concurred with Inquiry Officer in regard to the finding of guilt recorded in respect of the second charge. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 23.6.1990 proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal in regard to the second charge. After considering the Respondents' reply, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 1.8.1990, imposed the punishment of dismissal. The matter rested there for several years.
(3.) In the meanwhile, on the basis of a complaint by the Branch Manager, a charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, in regard to the allegations which were the subject matter of the departmental enquiry. The criminal court acquitted the Respondent by judgment dated 7.7.1994, holding that charges were not proved beyond were not proved beyond doubt. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition (WP No. 5761/1994) challenging his dismissal, on the ground that he was acquitted in the criminal case. The said writ petition was disposed of by a brief order dated 26.5.1997 observing that he may avail the remedy of appeal and the appellate authority may consider the explanation for delay in submitting the appeal.;