Salil Kumar Datta, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order of S.C. Ghosh, J. discharging the Rule issued on the petitioner's application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant facts according to the petitioner are as follows :
(2.) The petitioner at the material time was working as the Assistant Branch Manager (Development) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) attached to the City Branch No. 2. By an order dated March 14, 1969 the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone of the Corporation, Respondent No. 2 as, it was stated, a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was contemplated. On April 30, 1969 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet containing four specific charges, all relating to defalcation of money. We are concerned really here with the charge No. 1 as the petitioner had been acquitted of all other charges. The charge No. 1 is to the following effect : "That an unadjusted amount of Rupees 1323.10 P. was lying in deposit in the account of Policy No. 9313237 on the life of Shri S.R. Jauhar. A cheque bearing No. OC/19-216 160 dated November 1, 1966 was drawn on the State Bank of India by the Life Insurance Corporation in favour of said Sri S. R. Jauhar for Rs. 1323.20 P. towards the refund of the said amount that was lying in deposit as above. You without any letter of authority from the said policy holder, Shri S. R. Jauhar, managed to get delivery of the said cheque and fraudulently got it encashed on 4th November, 1966 through your bank account with the West Bengal Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd., Calcutta and did not even pay the amount to the above-named policy holder."
(3.) The petitioner was directed to state if he admitted that he was guilty of all or any of the charges and if not, he was required to put in written statement of defence and/or explanation with such documents in support of his defence within 15 days from the date of the charge-sheet. The petitioner was directed to state further if he desired to be heard in person or to cite any witnesses in which case their names, designations and addresses were to be furnished indicating the nature of their evidence.;