- (1.) PETITIONER was a clerk in Central Bank of india. He was found involved in embezzlement of lakhs of rupees. Accordingly, after holding inquiry he was compulsorily retired through order dated September 17, 2001, Annexure 12 to the writ petition. Through the said order he was removed from bank service with retiral benefits. That order was passed by Regional manager, Agra. Against the said order petitioner filed appeal. Appeal was allowed on march 11, 2003 by Appellate Authority/deputy general Manager and punishment of removal was substituted by reduction by eight stages in time scale of pay for 10 years. There was four charges. Against every charge, reduction by two stages was granted. Against charge no. 1 and 2 reduction was for three years each and against charge nos. 3 and 4 it was for two years each. Copy of the said order has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit, dated august 20, 2005. Petitioner has challenged this order.
(2.) ALLEGATIONS were in respect of period when petitioner was posted at Mathura Branch. Charge sheet was given on October 26, 1998 and full opportunity was provided to the petitioner by Enquiry Officer. Appointing authority sent a copy of the report to the petitioner and after considering his reply passed the order dated September 17, 2001. Appointing Authority personally heard the petitioner on his representation on two dates august 27 and 29, 2001. The Appellate authority against charge no. 1 categorically held that petitioner was in collusion with criminals who defrauded the bank to the extent of more than Rs. 33 lakhs and petitioner acted mala fidely in the said transactions. He had unauthorizedly issued the cheque book without proper enquiry to a person who was not connected with the Account concerned. The second charge was that he issued another cheque book in favour of a third person in collusion with the criminals which caused loss of more than 33 lakhs to the bank. The appellate Authority recorded a finding that as far as charge no. 2 was concerned, petitioner was the main person responsible for the fraud. Third charge was that in March and June 1998, 16 forged demand draft were encashed and in the said activity also petitioner was primarily involved causing loss of 14. 5 lakhs. Fourth charge was also regarding deposit of 3 forged demand drafts. The finding of the Appellate authority is that fourth charge was also proved and it was also proved that due to petitioner's assistance criminals were able to cause the loss of Rs. 2 lakhs to the bank.
(3.) IT is very strange that inspite of such findings Appellate Authority set aside the order of removal on the following three grounds: 1. Petitioner is a member of scheduled caste. 2. All the children of the petitioner are school going. 3. Petitioner apart from salary has got no other source of income. ;