- (1.) THE instant special appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.310 (S/S) of 1993 (Om Prakash v. Chairman, State Bank of India and others).
(2.) BY the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge has set -aside the termination order passed against the respondent -petitioner and quashed Annexures No.1 and 2 submitted along with the writ petition with the direction that the Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority may proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the settled principle of natural justice and after recording of evidence in the light of the charge sheet and its reply submitted by the petitioner and may pass fresh order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the respondent -petitioner of being heard within six months, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to salary and other service benefits for the period during which he remained dismissed. Learned Single Judge further directed that re -enquiry be conducted within a period of six months as stipulated period and the fate of the respondent -petitioner shall be subject to the result of final enquiry.
(3.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the appeal are that the respondent -petitioner was posted as Clerk -cum -Cashier and all of sudden a memo dated 11.03.1991 was served upon him by the Branch Manager containing four charges regarding which the respondent -petitioner submitted his reply on 27.4.1991.The copy of the memo as well as reply are contained as Annexures No.3 and 4 respectively to the petition. Thereafter the respondent -petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 12.06.1992, by which disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent -petitioner and he was placed under suspension in spite of the fact that he has submitted reply of charge sheet vide order dated 28.12.1992. The enquiry was closed on 23.01.1992 and the respondent -petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard nor to cross -examine the complainants though, the charges were false. It is stated in para 9 of the petition that the complaint as made by account holders regarding misappropriation of funds regarding which the respondent -petitioner was not given opportunity to produce any evidence or to cross -examine the witnesses and all of sudden the respondent -petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 12.8.1992, without notice. After receiving the proposed punishment the respondent -petitioner submitted his submission in respect of the proposed punishment on 1.10.1992, contained as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. The disciplinary authority, without considering the applications made by the account holders and the statement given by them and reply submitted by the respondent -petitioner terminated the services of the respondent -petitioner on 9.11.1992. Learned counsel for the appellants during the arguments pointed out that it is not disputed that respondent -petitioner has not accepted the money in question handed over by the customer in good faith to the Bank Cashier i.e. respondent -petitioner. The respondent -petitioner, however, disputed the contention and submitted reasons behind the incident and nowhere he has disputed the facts. Only thing is that he twisted the facts and submitted otherwise. Smt. Lachmina came to Bank on 19.7.1989 to deposit the money and she handed over the money to the respondent -petitioner and received receipt. Similarly, Shri Riaz Ahmed has handed over Rs.6300/ - and obtained the receipt. Shri Ghanshyam has also deposited the money and obtained the receipt and the fraud was discovered when they made complaint to the Bank that the money has not been deposited despite the fact that the money has been entered into the pass book. It is crystal clear that the respondent -petitioner is an employee of the Bank. He made the entries in the ledger and pass book in respective account holders but subsequently pleaded otherwise.;