- (1.) This appeal by special leave is by the appellant, J. D. Jain, who was a workman and whose services have been terminated by the management of the State Bank of India (hereinafter called the respondent).
(2.) The material facts are these : The appellant was working as a cashier in the Meerut City Branch of the State Bank of India. On June 21, 1971, one Dishan Prakash Kansal ('Kansal' for short) who had a Savings Bank Account with the said branch of the State Bank came to the Bank to receive his Pass Book. On receipt of the Pass Book from the counter clerk, Kansal complained to Wadhera who was the Ledger-keeper, that on Feb., 8, 1971, he had withdrawn only Rs. 500.00 but a debit entry, of Rs. 1,500.00 had been shown in the Pass Book. Wadhera thereupon took Kansal to the Supervisor, R. P. Gupta, before whom Kansal repeated his complaint. Necessary documents pertaining to the said withdrawal were then examined and it was found that Kansal had given a 'letter of authority' (which expression means we are told, the withdrawal application form) to the appellant on Feb. 8, 1971 authorising him to withdraw the amount from his account. The letter of authority showed that it was for withdrawal of Rs. 1,500.00 though there appeared to be some interpolation suggesting that the figure of Rs. 500.00 had been altered to the figure of Rs. 1,500.00. The matter was then brought to the notice of M. Ramzan, the Agent of the State Bank, before whom also Kansal is said to have repeated his complaint.
(3.) Eventually on Sept. 18, 1972 a memorandum of charges was served on the appellant by the respondent stating, inter alia that in the letter of authority, the appellant altered in his own handwriting with different ink the amount of Rs. 500.00 to Rs. 1,500.00 and thus received Rs. 1000.00 in excess, passing only Rs. 500.00 to the pass book holder, and that he subsequently, on June 24, 1971, deposited Rs. 250.00 in the account of Kansal to liquidate a part of the amount misappropriated by him. The appellant replied to the charges. He denied the allegations. Thereupon, the respondent appointed one Rajendra Prasad as an Enquiry Officer and a formal disciplinary enquiry was held against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the respondent on Feb. 13, 1973. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were that the appellant had fraudulently altered the amount in the letter of authority given to him by Kansal, withdrew Rs. 1,500.00 from Kansal's account and paid Rs. 500.00 only to Kansal and misappropriated Rs. 1000.00. The disciplinary authority on receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer passed the following order (material portion only) :- "2. Although the charges against you are of a serious nature which would, in normal course, warrant your dismissal from the service of the Bank, yet keeping in view your past record, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter. Upon consideration of the Matter, I have tentatively come to the decision that your misconduct be condoned and you be merely discharged of in terms of paragraph 521 (5) (e) of the Sastry Award read with paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award and paragraph 1.1 of the Agreement dated the 31st March, 1967 entered into between the Bank and the State Bank of India Staff Federation. Before, however I take a final decision in the matter I would like to give you a hearing as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed upon you. To enable you to do so, I enclose copies of the proceedings of the enquiry and findings of the Enquiry Officer. 3. You may ask for a hearing or if you so prefer show cause in writing within one week of receipt by you thereof. If you fail therein, I will conclude that you have no cause to show in this behalf." The appellant then submitted a representation to Shri V. B. Chadha, the Regional Manager of the State Bank of India on June 15, 1973. Shri Chadha after perusing the representation of the appellant and hearing him in person, recommended that the proposed punishment should not be imposed upon the appellant, on the grounds that Kansal had not been examined as a witness and that there had been no written complaint against the appellant. The respondent however, did not accept the recommendation, and, by its memorandum of December 7, 1973, discharged the appellant from service with effect from the close of the business on Dec. 22, 1973.;