- (1.) This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the unsuccessful appellant, is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that once the charges against the appellant were proved in a regular departmental inquiry then there was no escape for the conclusion that the appellant was liable to be punished. The learned Single Judge has repelled the contention that the nature of misconduct is disproportionate to the penalty of premature retirement.
(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy it would first be appropriate to notice few facts. The appellant was working as Cashier/Clerk and was posted at Malout Branch in the year 2006. He was charge sheeted for various acts of omission and commission. In a detailed departmental inquiry held against him in accordance with the provisions of the 'Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen, dated 10.4.2002' of the respondent Bank, in which the appellant was given full opportunity, he was found guilty of 15 charges. The conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 19.10.2007 (P-6) is as under:- "It is established from the above that the EPA was looking after clearing the BC seat in the capacity of computer operator and the supervision as well. Though the designation of EPA is special assistant no cap in his posting ensumed which indicates that managerial control at the branch is not up to the desired level. Technically all the entries/transactions referred to in the chargesheet were completed with the IDs of them being the EPA first arrange to afford wrongful credits and then subsequently arrange to credit the amount to rightful beneficiaries who were deprived of the credits at the first instance, though the local cheque drawn in other banks. In view of what has been stated above and documents/witnesses brought on inquiry record all the charges against EPA are held proved."
(3.) A perusal of the inquiry report would show that the appellant has credited the account of one account holder to the disadvantage of another account holder whom the credit should have been given. In many cases M/s Parwati Trading Company and M/s Parwati Lubricants are the beneficiaries of the wrong credit given by the appellant. In pursuance of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 29.11.2007 (P-2). The appellant filed reply to the show cause notice and was also granted opportunity of personal hearing on 27.12.2007. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were accepted and the punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed, vide order dated 2.2.2008 (P-7).;