DEV KUMAR JAIN Vs. PNB
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-101
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 25,2013

DEV KUMAR JAIN Appellant
VERSUS
Pnb Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was an Officer Incharge of Punjab National Bank's Extension Counter i.e. Mussoorie Dehradun Electricity Supply Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "MDESU") under Branch Office Karanpur, Dehradun between the years 1994 to 1996. The said Extension Counter used to receive cheques in the account of MDESU. However, the cheques collectively amounting to Rs. 19,76,504.50/ - which were liable to be credited to the account of Electricity Urban Distribution Division (South) [herein after referred to as 'EUDD(S)'] were not credited in the said account. Thereafter the Bank did an in house inquiry and found that all these cheques were deposited in the Bank of which the petitioner was the Branch Manager but the same have not been credited to the account of EUDD(S) at MDESU during 1995 -1996. Consequently, a complaint was filed before the CBI, Dehradun and a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner. CBI filed its chargesheet in the matter on 28.1.2002 under Sections 120B, 420, 471, 477 -A and 201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. At the same time, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner in which he was given a chargesheet on 4.3.2003. However, in view of the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner under Sections 120B, 420, 471, 477 -A and 201 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 petitioner was arrested by the CBI as far back in the year 2002 and the petitioner remained under judicial custody till 2005. Ultimately trial commenced against the petitioner in which he was acquitted of all the charges. Promptly thereafter the petitioner went to the Bank and sought joining which was given to him, but at the same time the departmental proceedings recommenced. Departmental proceedings were initially stalled, as the petitioner was under judicial custody.
(2.) BROADLY the charge against the petitioner is that an amount of Rs. 19,76,504.50/ - which was to be credited through various cheques in the account of EUDD(S) was not credited and in the inquiry it was found that they have been credited in fictitious accounts of Hari Ram, Vijay Pal, Uma Devi and Prem Singh. In the inquiry, it was found that such persons could not be traced on the address as mentioned in their accounts in the Bank and therefore they were found to be fictitious. The entire responsibility of all this was fixed on the petitioner as the extension counter was under his sole charge. The Inquiry Officer gave a finding against the petitioner in most of the charges. Though it is true that some of the charges were only partially proved. On the basis of the inquiry report the petitioner was removed from the services of the Bank.
(3.) AGGRIEVED , the petitioner moved a statutory appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed by a speaking order on 30.8.2007. Thereafter his revision of appeal has also been dismissed on 31.12.2007. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.