- (1.) This special appeal is from a judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 8 August 2014 in a writ petition (Writ A No. 60316 of 2005) filed by the respondent challenging an order of compulsory retirement following a disciplinary inquiry.
(2.) The respondent was a member of the sub-staff of the appellant and, at the relevant time, was working as a peon at the Ram Ghat Branch. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated on a charge of misconduct, based on a charge sheet dated 11 June 2003. Pending the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent was placed under suspension on 27 September 2002. The charge was that a Savings Bank Account bearing SB Account 17255, which was originally in the name of Smt. Kamala Yadav, was subsequently converted into a joint account with a person by the name of Amar Singh Yadav. The allegation is that on 15, 16, 17 and 19 July 2002, four cheques respectively in the amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- purported to be signed by Smt. Kamala Yadav were encashed. An FIR was lodged by the account holder, stating that the Bank had made payments of the aforesaid amounts though the cheques had not been signed by the account holder. The charge against the respondent was that on 12 July 2002, he had approached Raghubir Singh, a member of the circle staff with a request letter purportedly signed by the account holder for the issuance of a Cheque Book. Accordingly, a Cheque Book bearing Nos. 587571 to 587580 was issued on the request of the respondent to one Ramlal, a third party. The respondent is alleged to have requested the officials of the Bank for expediting the passing of the cheques. The respondent was on leave on 19 July 2002 but, it is alleged, he had visited the Branch on that date with a request to Rabhubir Singh of the clerical cadre for debiting one of the cheques in the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Savings Bank Account of the account holder. The respondent is thereafter alleged to have requested another officer Subodh Dwivedi for getting it passed. Since the respondent was in a hurry, on being asked to wait, it is alleged, he took the cheque to another officer for passing the cheque for payment. The allegation was that all the four cheques in the total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- were fraudulently encashed and were in the handwriting of the respondent. It was alleged that the respondent had fraudulently got a Cheque Book bearing Serial Nos. 587571 to 587580 issued in respect of the Savings Bank Account bearing SB Account 17255 and fraudulently got encashed the four cheques in the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs against the said Savings Account.
(3.) During the course of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent was assisted by a defence representative. The Bank examined its witnesses in support of the allegation of misconduct, including its own officers and a handwriting expert. The respondent examined witnesses in defence. The inquiry officer, by its report dated 3 July 2004, held that the charge of misconduct was proved. The finding in that regard was as follows: "I observe that the CSE has requested for expediting passing of all 4 cheques. As per Mex 1G/2 (Statement of Shri Raghubir Singh [MW 6]) CSE has come to him on all four occasions on 16.07.2002, 17.07.2002 and 19.07.2002 and requested him to expedite passing of those cheques. After the cheques were passed he himself took those cheques for taking payment order to Officer/Manager on cheques which were beyond the powers of MW 6. It is further observed from MEX 1G/2 that the CSE came on 19.07.2002 also and took the cheque for passing after the same was debited. Later MW 6 came to know that CSE was on leave on 19.07.2002 Shri Yashpal Arora (MW 1) has stated in his statement (MEX 1C/2) that on 16.07.2002 the cheque for Rs.50,000/- (MEX 12/10) was brought to him by CSE for passing for payment. It is further observed from the statement (MEX 1D/2) of Shri Lakhpat Singh (MW 5) that the CSE has brought the cheque dated 19.07.2002 for Rs.50,000/- (MEX 12/12) for payment. It is further observed from the statement of Shri Subodh Dwivedi (MEX IE/2) that on 19.07.2002 the peon brought one cheque to him for payment. Shri Dwevedi told him to wait till Manager comes. But he was in a hurry therefore he was referred to the Senior Accountant. From the above, it is clearly proved that CSE was instrumental in expediting passing of all 4 cheques and has himself taken the said cheques for payment. Defense has pleaded that taking cheque for passing to MW-5 by CSE there is nothing unusual and CSE in normal discharge of his duty was duty bound to do it and no motive can be attributed about the same. As regards deposition of MW-6 the defence pleaded that if the CSE's intervention is by virtue of normal discharge of his duties, no motive can be attributed reading in between line is an attempt to deprive the CSE of his livelihood due to malus animus manifested in a concerted manner. The said contention of defence cannot be accepted. Though there is no unusual thing in taking the cheque for passing but taking into account the other evidence i.e. requesting for issue of cheque book to third party by which amount was fraudulently withdrawn, taking the said cheques for payment by which money was fraudulently withdrawn and handwriting of CSE on the said cheques clearly shows the involvement of CSE. It is further observed that CSE was on leave on 19.07.2002. However on the said day he had come to the branch and was involved in expediting passing of the cheques for Rs.50,000/- in the said Account. The above clearly shows that on 19.07.2002 CSE had come to the branch for the purpose of getting the cheque passed and not for informing about his leave.";