- (1.) The Petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated August 12, 1993 is questioning the decision of the Disciplinary Authority & Chairman, Gaur Gramin Bank (now Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank) dated July 28, 1993, Annexure G at p.62, inflicting on him the following punishment: Degradation to lower stage to the extent of seven increments in the incremental scale, Shri Shyamal Kr. Sarkar will be drawing his basic pay at ' 1000 p.m. with immediate effect. The date of next increment will fall due on June 1, 1994. You shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of your suspension save and except what have been paid to you as and by way of subsistence allowance.
(2.) The Petitioner was working as a junior clerk-cum-cashier in the bank. By issuing a charge-sheet dated April 6, 1992, Annexure C at p.24, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The charges were as follows: (a) On October 28, 1991 a loan of ' 10,000 was disbursed by the Krishnapur Branch to Shri Jayanta Kumar Sarkar of village Buridaha, P.O. Diknagar, Distt. Malda for the purpose of hand pounding of rice. You, in collusion with Shri Madan Kumar Sarkar, Field Supervisor, Krishnapur Branch fraudulently encashed the amount of ' 10,000 and misappropriated the said amount of ' 10,000. (b) On November 14, 1991 a loan of ' 8000 was disbursed to Shri Chamatkar Singha of village Imamnagar P.O. Katikender for the purpose of hand pounding of paddy. You, in collusion with Shri Madan Kumar Sarkar, Field Supervisor of Krishnapur Branch fraudulently encashed the said amount of ' 8,000 and misappropriated the same. (c) During Rabi 1991-1992 season, a large number of crop loan were disbursed from Krishnapur Branch between the period from November 7, 1991 to November 20, 1991. You and Shri Madan Kumar Sarkar, Field Supervisor in collusion with Shri Shibapada Singha, Messenger of Krishnapur Branch, Shri Bistu Mondal of village Mahadebpur and Ganesh Adhikari of village Geradul took bribe from the borrowers (list annexed) for crediting the ARDR Relief to their loan a/cs and for facilitating their disbursement earlier. (d) Shri Sushil Biswas of village Polladanga was informed by you that a sum of ' 1200 would be required for closing of his previous loan a/c and fresh loan would be arranged. Shri Sushil Biswas handed over to you ' 1200 but you supplied him a receipt for ' 692 only. Subsequently Shri Kartick Biswas elder brother of Shri Sushil Biswas came to Krishnapur Branch and asked you about the receipt for balance amount. But you did not say anything. Afterwards on the same day within half an hour you refunded ' 500 to Shri Kartick Biswas through Kartick Mondal of Polladanga village. (e) On January 6, 1992 when the Branch Manager, Shri Samad Sarkar asked you to complete some arrear works, you misbehaved with the Branch Manager and the Field Supervisor, Shri Jakir Hossain and used filthy languages like "shala myanejeri phalachha, jutuo mere hadr bhenge debo" (Bengali writing transliterated). (f) You provoked the local people and tried to create communal feelings against the present Branch Manager and Field Supervisor. On January 20, 1992 at the instance of you, Shri Shibapada Singha stuck posters spreading some communal propaganda against the Branch Manager & Field Supervisor on the walls of the ground floor of the branch.
(3.) The inquiry officer submitted his report dated May 31, 1993, Annexure E/1 at p.28. With respect to charges (a), (b), (d) and (f) the inquiry officer held as follows: 1. Charge No. (a) ... Considering the documentary evidences and observations/explanation of the charged employee it is considered insufficient to prove the charge of misappropriation of fund by the charged employee. 2. Charge No. (b) ... Considering the above mentioned evidences, I am in the opinion that the charge levelled against the charged employee of misappropriation of fund is not proved. 3. Charge No: (d) ... Considering the above mentioned evidence, I have come to conclusion that charge levelled against the charged employee is not proved 4. Charge No. (f) ... Considering the above mentioned evidence, I am in the opinion that, the charge leveled against the charged employee is not proved.;