- (1.) Petitioner was employed as Head Cashier in Allahabad Bank, Branch Gopalpura Jagir, District Jalaun. Criminal proceedings were initiated against him with lodging of First Information Report registered as Case Crime No.241 of 2006 under Section 420 , 409 IPC. Charge sheet was submitted and ultimately petitioner was convicted in Criminal Case No.2541 of 2007 under Sections 420 , 409 IPC, State vs. Shambhu Dayal Dohrey vide order dated 12.1.2011. He was sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment and six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-. Based upon this conviction/sentence an order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner by the employer on 10.8.2011. The order of conviction was assailed by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2011, which ultimately succeeded vide order dated 13.7.2012 passed by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jalaun. The order of acquittal, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge is challenged by the State Government before this Court in Government Appeal No.4149 of of 2012, which is stated to be pending.
(2.) After the petitioner's acquittal in criminal case the respondent Bank proceeded to resume disciplinary proceedings which had although been initiated on 27.6.2006 but was deferred on account of pendency of criminal proceedings. In the disciplinary proceedings three charges were levelled against the petitioner. The first two charges were with regard to endorsement made in the ledger as also the passbook of account holders certifying deposit of Rs.2,500/- on 25.3.2006 and Rs.15,000/- on 10.4.2006, without getting such amount actually credited in the cash register of the bank. It is also alleged that entries were made by the petitioner without getting the pre-scroll done from the competent authority and the dates etc. were also not correctly mentioned. The third charge against the petitioner was that being Head Cashier he had the keys of shelf as dual control system was practiced in the branch. It is alleged that from 26.12.2005 to 29.12.2005 and again from 10.3.2006 to 19.3.2006 and thereafter with effect from 15.4.2006 without any intimation or sanctioned leave the petitioner remained absent alongwith keys, which adversely affected the functioning of the bank. The charges levelled against the petitioner were denied by him. An inquiry was conducted in which all the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. The copy of inquiry report was then served upon the petitioner alongwith a second show cause notice issued to him on 26.5.2014. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice but failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority has concurred with the view taken by the Inquiry Officer that all three charges are proved and accordingly an order dated 4.6.2014, terminating the services of petitioner has been passed by giving him three months notice in terms of clause 3 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002, and petitioner has been held not entitled to salary for the period he remained under suspension. An appeal preferred by the petitioner against such order has also been rejected vide order dated 10.10.2014. Aggrieved by the two orders, petitioner is before this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the orders impugned primarily on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that in respect of same charges criminal proceedings are pending inasmuch as the competent court has already passed order of acquittal against which a government appeal is pending before this Court, and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings ought not to have continued or concluded against the petitioner. The second ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisions contained in the Memorandum of Settlement have not been honoured and clause 3(d) thereof has not been given effect to. Learned counsel for the petitioner additionally submits that in fact petitioner had not accepted any amount from the two depositors, as is alleged, and therefore, his termination from service is wholly arbitrary.;