SUNEET KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE facts briefly stated is, the petitioner was working as Cashier in Punjab National Bank, Branch Dadri Gautma Budh Nagar, on allegation of embezzlement petitioner was placed under suspension on 3.9.2009. A preliminary inquiry was conducted, thereafter the petitioner was served with charge sheet on 9.11.2009 for embezzlement of Rs.17,65,500/ -.
(2.) PURSUANT thereof, the petitioner submitted a reply on 23.12.2009 denying the charge, thus, by order dated 4.1.2010, Inquiry Officer was appointed, who after conducting the inquiry submitted the enquiry report on 10.11.2010 holding the charge against the petitioner not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer thus, issuing memorandum dated 13.1.2011 calling upon the petitioner to show cause on the disagreement note and the reasons stated therein. The petitioner submitted reply on 27.1.2011. The Disciplinary Authority, considering the reply, issued show cause notice on 10.5.2011 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner may not be dismissed from the service. The petitioner submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority by the order dated 27.5.2011 imposed the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal on 8.8.2011. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on 6.9.2011 and affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the orders dated 27.5.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Meerut and dated 6.9.2011 passed by the appellate authority, Punjab National Bank, Bulandshahar, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the orders. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was on duty on 2.9.2009 and after the close of business of the Bank, the balance book was tallied, the key handed over to the officials as the petitioner was not going to attend the bank on the following day. On the following day i.e 3.9.2009, the cash vault was opened in the presence of the officials, it is alleged, that there was shortage of cash of Rs.17,65,500/ -, without conducting any preliminary inquiry regarding shortage of cash, petitioner was placed under suspension, subsequently charge sheeted, but the Inquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of the charge, it is thus contended that the Disciplinary Authority without taking into consideration the findings of the Inquiry Officer, had wrongly disagreed with the disciplinary authority.;