Dipak Prakas Kundu, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner, Shri Nityananda Mahadani (hereinafter referred to as Mahadani) was an employee of a nationalised bank namely Punjab National Bank (for short Bank). Mahadani was scheduled to retire from the service of the Bank on 31.5.1985. By a charge-sheet dated 9.3.1985 certain charges were levelled against him relating to misconduct alleged to have been committed by him between July, 1979 to October, 1981 when he was working as Accountant at Branch Office of the Bank at Purulia. By the Order of dismissal dated 20.5.1985 Mahadani was dismissed from the service of the Bank with immediate effect.
(2.) Gravity of charges was apparent from the "Statement of Imputation of Misconduct" which reads as follows "Statement of Imputation of Misconduct In Support of Article of Charge Against Shri N. N. Mahadani. CHARGE I: a) Shri Mahadani revived/set up overdraft limits in following accounts showing FDRs as securities but such FDRs were non-existent. JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(CAL)6_2002.html b) While reviving/setting up limits in accounts as mentioned at 'a' above, no documents were taken from the parties, no entry was made in Documents Register, limit sanction register etc.. Further, details of the FDRs were not mentioned in the ledger headings which indicate deliberate attempt to keep these transactions concealed. CHARGE II During Shri Mahadani's tenure as Accountant & Second man at BO: Puruliaa large scale of unauthorised business was continuing. To quote:- a) Limits were set up in many accounts to route unauthorised business, pertaining to fake bills & adjusting the DD's out of the overdrafts account so that DD's purchased do not outstand for a period of more than one month. For instance. JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(CAL)6_2002(1).html b) DD's were not realised at the destination in all cases, rather most of them were adjusted by purchasing new DDs for adjustment of old one and the vouchers were passed debit : ODD : Credit : ODD. For instance, JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(CAL)6_2002(2).html c) Fictitious accounts were opened in order to accommodate the borrowers in in irregular manner to facilitate different group concerns to avail finance, to quote:- JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(CAL)6_2002(3).html Charge III The setting up/revival of O/D limits as mentioned in charge earlier under signature of Shri Mahadani were to be reported in monthly statement of limit sanctioned (PNB 207). This was not done by him. Charge IV As second man & Accountant it was his duty to ensure that proper books of accounts are maintained at the branch. During Shri Mahadani's stay at the branch, party-wise D/D Register, Deviation Register were not being maintained. Entries were not being properly made in the BC-cum-Documents Register for limit sanctioned. DDs to the tune of lacs of Rupees have been purchased in certain accounts without drawing up proper CR's or setting up D/D limits. These things could continue as adequate vigilance & efforts were lacking on the part of Shri Mahadani."
(3.) The enquiry against Mahadani in respect of the charges levelled 'against him was conducted by Shri J.K. Bag as Enquiry Officer who was not the disciplinary authority. On 17.5.85 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report rathe disciplinary authority. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry proceedings ex parte on the ground that Mahadani did not participate in the proceedings. The Dy. General Manager, Zonal Office of the Bank being disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held Mahadani guilty of the charges levelled against him. Mahadani was dismissed from the service of the Bank with immediate effect. The relevant part of the order of dismissal dated 20. 5. 1985 is set out hereunder:- "Considering the enquiry report and the records of the enquiry proceedings submitted by Shri J.K.Bag, Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry proceedings in your case, Dy. General Manager, Zonal Office, Calcutta, the Disciplinary Authority has decided to impose upon you the punishment of dismissal from the Bank's service with immediate effect for the following lapses committed by you while functioning as Accountant BO Purulia, vide order as under:- "Shri N.N. Mahadani was served with charge sheet dated 9.3.85 for the serious irregularities committed by him while working as Accountant at BO Purulia. Shri Mahadani did not submit his statement of defence despite extension allowed as requested by him vide letter dated 19.3.85. To look into the truth of imputation of lapses as contained in the aforesaid charge-sheet enquiry proceedings were initiated. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 17.05.85. I find that Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry proceedings ex-parte as Shri Mahadani did not participate in the proceedings. I have gone through the enquiry report and the records of the enquiry proceedings and find that the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the following charges mentioned in the above charge sheet have been established against Shri Mahadani - He set up/revived OD limits in various accounts showing FDRs as securities but such FDRs were non-existent and he did not make entry of such limits into Documents Register, Limit Sanctioned Register. - He failed to report the large scale unauthorised business being conducted at the branch and thus failed in his duties as second man. - He did not report the facts of setting up/revival of OD limits in the prescribed periodical returns to the higher authorities. - He did not have proper control over branch routine and thus failed to discharge his duties sincerely. I agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and hold Shri Mahadani guilty of the above mentioned serious charges. In view of the above, decide to impose upon Shri Mahadani the punishment of dismissal from Bank's service with immediate effect. order accordingly." In view of the above, the punishment of dismissal has been imposed upon you with immediate effect. One copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is enclosed for your perusal and record.";