- (1.) This Special Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment and order dated 7.12.1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court Farooq Hasan J (as he then was) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 688/1985, whereby the orders dated 3.2.1984 and 30.8.1984 passed by the appellant State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur imposing a penalty of removal from service of the Bank in terms of Regulation 57(g) of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to , for short, as "the Service Regulations) have been set aside holding that the respondent's removal from Bank's service is null and void and non-existent in the eye of law and for violation of the provisions of the Bank Service Regulations as also violation of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It has, therefore been directed that the respondent herein be treated as having continuing in the service of the Bank from the date of the aforesaid order of removal. It has also been held therein that in view of the fact that a long time has elapsed since passing of the order of dismissal, the Bank (appellant herein) should not be permitted to hold a fresh enquiry against the petitioner on the charges in question. Accordingly, the petitioner (respondent herein) has been held to be entitled to all the Consequential reliefs financial as well as promotional after his reinstatement. The appellant Bank, feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, has challenged the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge on various grounds. But before referring to the same, the salient facts of the case may be recapitulated as follows: -
(2.) Respondent A.K. Kothari while functioning as Branch Manager at the Bank Chhoti Sadari Branch, during the year 1980-1981 in course of his duty is alleged to have pocketed a sum of Rs. 324.85 only by falsely showing payment of banker's cheque No. Ao/576823 dated 29.10.1980 to one Shri Radhey Shyam which was originally issued in the name of Anandi Lal by subsequently substituting the name of Radhey Shyam therein. Under these circumstances, it was alleged that respondent A.K. Kothari abused his official position and displayed lack of absolute integrity and honesty and, thus, he committed the acts which were unbecoming of a bank official and thereby he was charged of violation of Regulation 50(4) of the Bank Service Regulation of 1979. Respondent Kothari, accordingly, was served with the charge-sheet dated 30.9.1982.
(3.) In reply to the charges', the respondent herein submitted his written statement dated 26.12.1983, wherein he offered an explanation stating that Radhey Shyam to whom the payment of Rs. 324.85 was made which, in fact, was earlier paid to Anandi Lal, was due to a special circumstance. Elaborating the said circumstance, it was stated that Radhey Shyam was working as Badli Watchman from time to time and had marked his attendance in the Watch and Ward Register for the days he performed his duty. After working for some days, in the month of October, 1980, Radhey Shyam quit the Bank service. But before the salary of Radhey Shyam was prepared he had sent a letter requesting for payment of his salary to one Anandi Lal in whose name the cheque of Rs. 324.85 had earlier been issued. It was expLalned that the clerk had prepared the salary in the name of Anandi Lal which, in fact, was payable to Radhey Shyam. But since he had granted the letter of authority to Anandi Lal, his name was wrongly shown in the salary register in place of Radhey Shyam. Respondent Kothari, therefore, submitted that when this error came to his notice at the time of checking the name in the salary register, the same was corrected as Radhey Shyam and when Radhey Sham again joined his duty in January 1981, the payment of the choque was made to him by obtaining a suitable letter from him and after making the necessary correction in the cheque. The respondent further stated that the letter of authority of Radhey Shyam in favour of Anandi Lal had never been demanded by Nagauri nor he had asked the respondent anything about the missing of certain pages of the relevant watch and ward register. The respondent, therefore, submitted that the allegation of payment of cheque in question to Radhey Shyam was not taken by him and, therefore, he totally denied the said charges that he pocketed Rs. 324.85 which was payable to Radhey Shyam and, in fact, had also been paid to him after the necessary correction expLalned hereinabove.;