Sirpurkar, CJ. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. In that writ petition the petitioner had challenged his dismissal from the service as a Clerk in the Bank after a departmental enquiry was held against him.
(2.) The petitioner/appellant was working at the relevant time in Bhukailash Branch of the Central Bank. A charge-sheet came to be filed against him dated 2nd July, 1993 alleging, inter alia, that though he had received an amount of Rs. 1,13,136.85/- under five heads and though he was duty bound to deposit the same, he did not actually deposit the entire collected money with the Bank. In the charge-sheet it is suggested that in place of depositing the collected amount stated above, he deposited merely Rs. 67,998.46p. and thus he had committed the defalcation. Ultimately this charge-sheet came to be corrected vide a corrigendum where it was suggested that the amount of Rs.9,069.83p. shown in the charge-sheet as the deposited amount should be read as Rs. 12,559/-. In short by the corrigendum it was suggested that he had committed a defalcation of Rs.41,539.30 paise and not Rs. 45,139.39 paise as originally stated. A full fledged enquiry was proceeded against the appellant/delinquent officer. Initially his explanation was called in writing. It seems that he sought for time but did not give a complete explanation and instead chose to give a statement regarding the amounts which he had in fact deposited. However, there does not appear to be a defence statement made. Ultimately the evidence was laid against him during the enquiry wherein two witnesses were examined. These witnesses were allowed to be cross-examined also and ultimately a written explanation was asked, which explanation seems to have been given by the appellant and after consideration of the overall facts and evidences, the punishment of dismissal was handed out. The petitioner filed a writ petition against this punishment. However, the writ petition came to be dismissed.
(3.) Learned Single Judge firstly held that the departmental enquiry was conducted in a proper manner in keeping with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the delinquent officer was given full opportunity to take part. The learned Judge also came to the conclusion that the result of the other departmental enquiry against one Nripendra Nath Sarkar who had earlier served in place of the petitioner had got nothing to do with the present enquiry and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Nripendra Nath Sarkar in C. O. No. 10234 (W) of 1996 was irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the present case. Lastly the learned Single Judge went into the merits and came to the conclusion that though the petitioner had collected various amounts, he had failed to deposit the said amounts or had even failed to give any accounts regarding the shortages. The learned Judge found that the explanation of the delinquent officer that he had spent some amounts was not proved and was rightly held not to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and that no material was brought before the Court to suggest that there was any prejudice caused to the delinquent officer on account of non-supplying the documents which he had asked for.;