AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case it appears to this Court that there are five charges against the petitioner. While the 5 petitioner was working at Padrauna Branch during the period from September 12, 1985 to June 22, 1991 he committed lapses and accordingly five charges were levelled which are as follows: 10 "1. While working at Padrauna Branch Pandey was deputed to Vishunpura Branch occasionally as officiating Branch Manager from where he took cash of Rs. 13450/- Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 27,000/- on February 18, 1991, February 21, 1991, and April 10, 1991 respectively to deposit the same at Padrauna Branch. Though he reached at Padrauna Branch well in the office hours on all these dates, but he did not deposit the cash and kept the same with him unauthorisedly and deposited on February 20, 1991, February 22, 1991 and April 11, 1991 respectively and thus defalcated Bank's money, temporarily. 2. Sri Pandey misappropriated a credit entry of Rs. 800/- dated March 24, 1990 from term loan (Tractor) A/C Radha Kishan Singh and others to term loan (Kirana shop) A/C Chhedi Yadav by altering the credit, voucher dated March 23/24, 1990 for Rs. 800/- and making a fake entry in C/D sundry creditors of the same on January 29, 1991 and withdrew the same on January 29, 1991 itself through a debit cash voucher putting his signature on overleaf as a token of having received the amount for Chhedi Yadav and thus, withdrew Rs. 800/- in a fraudulent manner. 3. Pandey to minimise the overdrawing in his personal overdraft account, credited Rs. 11,000/- on November 13, 1990 which was deposited by Patna Pharmacy for credit to their overdraft Account and to cover-up the same he posted Cheque No. 0515435 for Rs. 6831/- issued by Patna Pharmacy for issue of demand draft in his personal overdraft account on November 13, 1990 and thus Pandey had acted unlawfully. 4. Pandey passed his own conveyance reimbursement bill on February 2, 1991 for the month of January 1991 for Rs. 887.60 in the capacity of branch manager (C) though no power was vested in him. He had thus intentionally taken the conveyance reimbursement and derived undue pecuniary benefit. 5. Pandey released a voucher for Rs. 800/- on January 21, 1991 being the medical aid for the year 1991 in his favour without any sanction from the competent authority. He has thus, abused his official position."
(2.) The inquiry officer found that the charge No. 1 is not proved. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned he said that it was proved to the extent that CSO has altered the entry of Rs. 800/- without verification etc. but is not found guilty of withdrawing Rs. 800/- fraudulently. So far as charge No. 3 is concerned the inquiry officer said that charge was proved to the extent that CSO has posted the voucher/Cheque in wrong account but mala fide intention has not been proved. So far as charge No. 4 is concerned he has said that CSO was not having power to pass conveyance bill, thus he was found guilty to pass his own conveyance bill without any power but the other part of the charge that he derived undue pecuniary benefit could not be proved. So far as charge No. 5 is concerned the inquiry officer has not found guilty for abusing his official position. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and in its order the disciplinary authority awarded the following punishment: In respect of charge No. 1 Discharge from service In respect of charge No. 2 Discharge from service In respect of charge No. 3 Reduction of two increments in a time scale In respect of charge No. 4 The order of censure entries and 5
(3.) After perusing the material available on the record particularly the order of disciplinary authority, we are not very much pleased with the findings of the disciplinary authority with regard to disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer. No proper reasoning has been given for disagreement. On the other hand the punishment of reduction of two increments and censure entries have also been merged with the ultimate punishment of dismissal. Therefore, the order of dismissal has been passed despite the fact that the inquiry officer was very much specific in not awarding such punishment. In such circumstances the disciplinary authority should have been very much careful in recording proper reasonings. Accordingly, we do not find any proper reason for awarding such punishment, whatsoever in the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority.;