Vineet Saran - (1.) THE petitioner is an employee of the Syndicate Bank. Certain charges were levelled against him, and after enquiry, by an order dated 17.3.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority (respondent No. 3) the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner. THE appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 5.7.2001 by the appellate authority, respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, this writ petition has been filed. A further prayer has been made that the petitioner be reinstated in service with full benefits of continuity of service, arrears of salary, promotion etc.
(2.) I have heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri P. K. Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank and have perused the record. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Syndicate Bank on 23.3.1982. By order dated 18.7.1998 passed by the respondent-Bank, the petitioner was transferred from Faizabad Branch to Mandi Dhanaura Branch in District Jyotiba Phuley Nagar. Consequently he joined at Mandi Bhanaura Branch on 23.7.1998. On 14.11.1998 the petitioner submitted his traveling allowance bill for a sum of Rs. 8,493 which, amongst other things, included the expenses for carrying his personal effects (household goods) by road transport. Out of the claimed amount, the petitioner was sanctioned and paid an amount of Rs. 2,512 only. Thereafter by order dated 9.6.1999, the petitioner was re-transferred from Jyotiba Phuley Nagar to Faizabad. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined at Faizabad Branch on 5.7.1999. Then, on 19.9.1999, the petitioner submitted his travelling allowance bill for a sum of Rs. 5,559.50p. which, amongst other things, included the transportation of his household goods by road transport. As against the claimed amount, the petitioner was sanctioned and paid only Rs. 3,058.10p. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Officer of the Bank in the matter of payment of travelling allowance bills of the petitioner and pursuant thereto, on 2.6.2000, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The summary of the charges levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner had submitted fabricated travelling allowance bills for transporting his household goods and also for breakage of goods during transportation. In the first bill dated 14.11.1998, which was for a sum of Rs. 8,493, the petitioner had claimed a sum of Rs. 6,000 for transporting his household goods (personal effects) from Faizabad to Jyotiba Phuley Nagar by road transport through M/s. Agrawal Carriers. A further sum of Rs. 950 was claimed for breakage of goods during transportation. In the second bill dated 19.9.1999, for a sum of Rs. 5,559.50p., an amount of Rs. 3,500 had been claimed for transportation of household goods (personal effects) from Jyotiba Phuley Nagar to Faizabad by road transport through M/s. Laxmi Truck Toyota Transport Co. and a further sum of Rs. 500 was claimed for breakage of goods during transportation. Out of the aforesaid, as against the first bill a sum of Rs. 1,219 only was paid to the petitioner towards transportation of household goods and Rs. 500 towards breakage of goods, i.e., only Rs. 1,719 had been paid to him. As against the second bill, a sum of Rs. 1,323.60P. was paid to the petitioner towards transportation and Rs. 500 for breakage of goods. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,719 plus Rs. 1,823.60p. (total Rs. 3,542.60p.) had been paid to the petitioner as against the heads of transportation and breakage of goods which was for both the bills of the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner is only with regard to payment of the said amount made to him.
(3.) ON receipt of the charge-sheet dated 2.6.2000, the petitioner submitted his reply on 23.6.2000. ON 26.8.2000 an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry. In the enquiry proceedings, two witnesses were examined by the bank, namely, K. A. Sitaram (M.W. 1) who was the Vigilance Officer of the Bank who had made vigilance enquiries ; and M. P. Vishwanathan (M.W. 2) who had assisted the Vigilance Officer during such enquiry. The petitioner examined himself as the sole witness (W.W. 1). Thereafter, the enquiry report was submitted on 25.1.2001, wherein it was concluded that the charge of 'gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank' as per Clause 19.5 (J) of the Bipartite Settlement was found established and proved. ON the basis of the enquiry report, vide notice dated 7.3.2001, the disciplinary authority proposed to award punishment of 'dismissal from services of the bank with immediate effect.' The petitioner submitted his reply and was provided personal hearing on 16.3.2001 and thereafter on 17.3.2001, the punishment order of 'dismissal from service' was passed by the disciplinary authority. The appeal filed by the petitioner on 12.4.2001 has also been dismissed vide order dated 5.7.2001. The charges against the petitioner are based on the endorsement dated 13.4.2000 made on the back of the photo copy of the receipt of M/s. Agrawal Carriers issued in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 6,000. In the said endorsement, made by Sri Sundar Lal Agrawal, proprietor of M/s. Agrawal Forwarding Agency, it was stated that the M/s. Agrawal Carriers had been closed down in the year 1996 and thereafter the firm, M/s. Agrawal Forwarding Agency had been constituted by the same proprietor. It was further mentioned that the said receipt had not been issued by M/s. Agrawal Forwarding Agency. A written statement, in the form of a letter, was also submitted on the same date, i.e., 13.4.2000, by Sunder Lal Agrawal to the Assistant Vigilance Officer M. P. Vishwanathan. In the said letter it has been mentioned by Sunder Lal Agrawal that it appeared that the said receipt may have been issued by some employee, of which he had no information as the employee had not informed him of the same ; and that since the firm had been closed, he did not possess the duplicate copy of the receipt. In the case of the other transportation bill issued by M/s. Laxmi Truck Toyota Transport Company, the endorsement made by the partner of the firm (Ajai Kumar) on the back of the photocopy of the receipt has been relied upon, which was to the effect that the said receipt had not been issued by the firm. The said endorsement is also of 13.4.2000 and was given to the Vigilance Officer of the Bank. Relying on such evidence, the enquiry report had been submitted by the Enquiry Officer of the Bank.;