Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank-the appellant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the employer) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur directing the Board of Directors of the employer-Bank (in short the Board) to re-consider the matter and pass any punishment other than dismissal, removal of termination of the respondent-Munna Lal Jain (hereinafter referred to as the employee).
(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On the allegation that while temporarily functioning as the Branch Manager of Kabra Branch, the respondent-employee withdrew a sum of Rs. 25,000/- unauthorisedly and such act amounted to misconduct warranting serious penalty. Because of such unauthorized withdrawal, charges were framed against him by charge-sheet dated 14-10-1992 alleging that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 6-5-1992 for his personal use. The respondent-employee filed his explanation. Though not disputing the factum of withdrawal, plea was taken by him that during the relevant period condition of his wife had deteriorated and required immediate surgical interference. He had informed about withdrawal to the Head Office at Damoh. The explanation was not accepted, an Enquiry Officer was appointed who submitted his report on 20-7-1993 holding that the employee was guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after following the formalities i.e. issuance of show-cause notice, passed the order of removal. In appeal the said order of removal was maintained. Against the aforesaid order the employee preferred Writ Petition No. 2719 of 1995. Learned single Judge held that the charges levelled have been duly brought home, but remitted the matter to the appellate authority for re-consideration with regard to the quantum of punishment. Pursuant to the direction, the matter was again considered by the Board and it was held that the order of removal did not require re-consideration. Employee filed a Writ Petition (W.P. No. 4812 of 1998). Learned single Judge, who heard the matter, held that the Board had not considered the matter from all angles keeping in view the observations made in the earlier order dated 13-5-1998. Direction was given to the Board to re-consider the penalty of removal. The matter was again re-considered and the Board refused to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The said order was assailed in Writ Petition No. 5236 of 2000. Learned single Judge declined to interfere on the ground that the charges had been proved and the Board had passed a detailed order. Learned single Judge further held that the factum of illness of the wife had not been proved as no documents had been filed.;