SIDDHARTH,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vijendra Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pashupati Nath Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying for quashing of the Appellate Order dated 04.01.2015, passed by Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Delhi Gate, Agra, respondent no.3 and the Punishment Order dated 24.07.2015, down grading him by two stages in the scale of pay, passed by Chief Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Delhi Gate, Agra. Further prayers have been made for reserving one post in Officer Grade for the petitioner and directing the respondents to pay Rs.25,390/- as conveyance allowance to him. The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner, while being posted as Single Widow Operator- A Category (SWO-A) at Mahavirganj Branch, Aligarh of Allahabad Bank, from 28.07.2008 to 29.06.2013, was alleged to have committed certain acts of commission and omission which amounted to gross misconduct and he was charge sheeted with the following charges, Article-1- Instances of splitting the transactions of cash remittance to other Bank's/ branches by Shri Satish Kumar Verma, were found. Whenever the aggregate remitted amount was more than Rs.6.00 lac and up to Rs.20.00 lac for any one branch, it was broken into multiples of Rs.6.00 lac per voucher, to pretend that as many trips to that branch, as number of vouchers, have been made at different points of time on same day. "Q Nos." generated by the software package and written over cash payment vouchers, are either consecutive or are very close to each other, which compel to believe that the total amount was carried at a time in one lot in spite of making separate vouchers of Rs.6.00 lac each, which is also confirmed by the cash deposit vouchers at the receiving branches. Article-2- The practice of breaking the aggregate amount into multiples of either Rs.6.00 lac or Rs.10.00 lac was adopted by Shri Satish Kumar Verma with some ulterior motive such as to get more conveyance amount, as every day when cash was remitted, the conveyance payment vouchers (for remittance) equals the cash remittance vouchers. Article-3- In all the cases the counterfoil of the cash deposit vouchers are not held, in absence of which it can't be said that the remitted cash was deposited in the intended branch on same day as per payment voucher. Article-4. In a very large number of cases package generated ''SYS No' is not mentioned on payment vouchers, which is a must for affording corresponding credit and in absence of which it is very difficult to correlate the Pay Orders with outstanding originating debts. Article-5. HOIC No.11407 dated 27.05.11 on Bankers Indemnity Policy, which was in force during the relevant period and in compliance of which a maximum sum of Rs.20.00 lac could have been remitted at a time, without Armed Guard. The then prevailing guidelines were not followed, as far as quantum of amount is concerned, which has resulted in payment of much more conveyance amount. A huge sum of Rs.52200/- as conveyance amount towards cash remittance has been paid during the period 19.07.11 to 11.08.12, i.e., a period of about 13 months only to him. Article-6. Shri Satish Kumar Verma was paid an aggregate amount of Rs.60.00 lac on 23.07.2011 by way of six separate cash vouchers of Rs.10.00 lac each bearing Q Nos. 19214 to 19219, to debit of BGL. Account- Current Account with PNB. For depositing in PNB Currency Chest which Shri Satish Kumar Verma did by way of six separate entries on same date. Article-7-On 5 occasions the other Banks did not issued Pay Orders on the dates cash was remitted by Sri S.K. Verma. Article-8.- On 10.04.2012, aggregate amount of Rs.24.00 lacs was remitted through Sri S.K. Verma, but Pay Order of Rs.12.00 lacs was only issued by the Branch. Remaining amount of Rs.12.00 lacs was made good on next date i.e., 11.04.2012. On 11.06.2012, Rs. 24.00 lacs was remitted through Sri S.K. Verma but the Pay Order of only Rs.6.00 lacs was issued by the Bank Branch, in lieu of cash remittance. Deficiency of Rs.18.00 lacs was made good on 12.06.2012. Article-9- Certain transactions of unusual nature were discovered, wherein the part of the amount deposited was paid to Karvy Commodities Ltd., through cheques which pointed to Sri S.K.Verma being involved in Commodity Trading through the aforesaid agency. Article-10- Conveyance paid for late sitting to Sri S.K.Verma for extra work 3 days per week @ 160/- per day aggregating to Rs.25,930/-. No record of such late sitting was found. Article-11- Sri S.K.Verma diverted Rs.92,000/- from his OD Account to his S/B Account and then to Karvy Commodities Ltd., mis-utilizing the OD Account. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges as follows: Article-1 &2. The petitioner never splitted any transaction of cash remittance to other banks. He took the cash as per direction of the Manager. He further stated that sometimes due to excess work the Q numbers were given in a row one after the other because of connectivity problem. Whenever the time and connectivity were there, the accepting bank used to post the amounts. Article-3. The petitioner replied that whenever he took cash for depositing it in other branch, the amount was accepted and banker's cheque was issued to the Mahavirganj Branch of the Allahabad Bank and the Counter foils of cash deposit vouchers were never demanded from him. Article-4. The SYS No. was written by the Bank Officer on the payment vouchers and it was not his duty to put SYS No. Article-5. He was not aware of the HOIC No. 11407 dated 27.05.2011. He deposited the cash as per the direction of the Manager and the payment vouchers were made as per the expenditure in the use of vehicle. He is 60% disabled by leg and therefore without vehicle it was difficult for him to make cash remittances. Article-6. He took cash amount of Rs.10.00 lacs each on 23.07.2011 to P.N.B. Chest and every time receipt was given by P.N.B. Chest for cash deposit. Due to excess work and connectivity problem, the deposits were shown in consecutive Q Nos, for which the petitioner can not be held responsible. Articles-7, 8 and 9. Every time the petitioner remitted the amount bankers cheque of the same amount was issued to him on the same date and regarding the late showing of remittance of the amount by the one day, it is stated that due to problem of connectivity, the amount were posted on the system with delay and there was no fault on his part. Article-10. The amount of Rs.92,000/- was withdrawn by him because his daughter's marriage was settled in Aug.,2010 and the marriage was solemnized in Feb., 2011. He has De-Mat account with Karvy Commodities Limited, which was opened when the Allahabad Bank allotted shares of the Bank to him. The transaction in his account was due to private loan and provident fund loan for the marriage of his daughter. Rs.92,000/- was paid to the jwellers through the De-Mat account with the Karvy Commodities Limited. Article-11. He performed the work of late sitting in the Bank on the instructions of the Manager and he used to do the job of tallying cash, clearing work, F.D. work, List posting, Sales Tax posting, etc., and the manager used to make payments. The amount of Rs.25,930/- paid to him on this account has been illegally recovered from him without any justification.
(3.) The disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry into the charges against the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his defence statement dated 16.02.2015 to the same. In the defence statement, the petitioner stated that on 17.12.2014 and 09.02.2015, he demanded 12 documents for his defence but the enquiry officer did not permit most of the documents. He gave the copy of only 2 documents, which is against the principles of natural justice. All the documents produced as Management Exhibit (M.E.) were required to be proved by the Management Witness (M.W.). None of the documents have been proved by the author of the documents but exhibit numbers have been mentioned without formal proof of the documents. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 23.06.2014 to the disciplinary authority, who issued a second show cause notice dated 23.06.2015, annexing therewith the copy of the aforesaid enquiry report requiring the petitioner to show cause against the findings of the enquiry officer. The proposed penalty, of bringing him down to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages, was proposed and opportunity of personal hearing on 06.07.2015 was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice dated 30.06.2015, stating that his Defence Assistant, Sri Navneet Kumar has suffered accident and he is not able to appear before the disciplinary authority and prayed that he may be given some other date for the purpose. However, without granting any opportunity of personal hearing by fixing another date, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order dated 24.07.2015 against the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application dated 13.08.2015 before the disciplinary authority stating that he may be granted personal hearing and then fresh punishment order may be passed. The petitioner stated that by his letter dated 30.06.2015, he has informed that his defence representative has suffered accident and some further date may be given for personal hearing but without providing any opportunity of personal hearing, the punishment order has been passed, which has caused great prejudice to his rights. By the order dated 12.08.2015, the disciplinary authority rejected the prayer of the petitioner for personal hearing again, on the ground that in pursuance of his request, last opportunity was given to him for appearing before him on 24.07.2015 by the letter dated 09.07.2015, but he did not availed the same and no further opportunity can be granted to him. The petitioner states that the recital in the letter dated 12.08.2015 of the disciplinary authority are incorrect. He neither made any request for fixing 24.07.2015, as the date for hearing nor he received the letter dated 09.07.2015. ;