Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) A charge sheet was issued to appellant/petitioner on the basis of the allegations incorporated therein. The appellant/petitioner had been charged with misappropriation of Bank's money to the tune of Rs. 26,341.00 tantamounting to doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank tinder Clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement of 1966. The petitioner had replied to the charge sheet. The reply having been found unsatisfactory, an enquiry was initiated. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. Enquiring Officer submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of Rs. 23,240/- instead of Rs. 26,34 I/- and that he was guilty of doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank within the meaning of Clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement of 1966. A second show cause was issued with regard to the punishment proposed. The petitioner had submitted reply to his second show cause. After considering the show cause, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal. This order was challenged in the writ petition, being W.P. No. 971 (W) of 1993. This writ petition was ultimately dismissed by ajudgment and order dated 13th of June, 2002. The present appeal is directed against that order.
(2.) Mr. Sanyal, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contends that there was no finding with regard to the misappropriation of any amount or using the amount for his personal use. The only finding that has been arrived at is with regard to doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. According to him, the petitioner/appellant was a cashier, who had the responsibility of signing the bundles of cash when they are counted and put into blocks of hundreds. But these are prepared by other staff. On the belief that the other staff had rightly counted it, he used to put his signature. He has no fault on his part. It could not be done by himself alone, the others were also responsible. The Bank has not (sick) any proceedings as against any of them. They had only proceeded with the appellant/petitioner. According to him. the petitioner could not have been found guilty of the charges on the basis of materials produced. The finding is perverse.
(3.) Mr. Sanyal next contended that even if assuming but not admitting that the charges were proved but having regard to the gravity of the charges, the punishment inflicted is disproportionate. He has drawn our attention to page 39 wherefrom he had pointed out that several other staffs and officers of the Bank, who had committed similar kind of misconduct, were let off with punishment lesser than dismissal/ discharge or removal. Therefore according to him, the standard of punishment inflicted on the petitioner is disproportionate than those inflicted on those persons who were found guilty of more serious misconduct.;