SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA - (1.) By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the departmental proceedings initiated vide charge sheet dated 29.12.2014, punishment order dated 28.07.2015, appellate order dated 08.10.2015 and the subsequent order passed in review petition dated 25.02.2016 whereby the petitioner on the basis of the two charges levelled against him was punished with compulsory retirement under the provision of the Union Bank of India Officer Employee's (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations 1976').
(2.) Brief facts which need to be noted are that the petitioner while working as Junior Management (Grade-I) with the Bank, was served with charge sheet vide memorandum dated 29.12.2014 wherein allegations were levelled against the petitioner that on 14.08.2014 the petitioner entered a fraudulent transaction of Rs.8.000/- by debiting sundry deposit-sundry credit Advances Department Account No.352602850009000 and crediting Saving Bank Account 352602010070231 in the name of Smt. Raminder Kaur Anand with transaction ID AA384218. The said transaction was credited and entered by him. After doing the above transaction, the petitioner attempted to withdraw the amount by preparing one loose leaf No. 3784588 for withdrawal of Rs. 8000/- from account No.352602010070231 which was entered with transaction ID AA392052 by Shri Mangi Lal Sharma (MS292719), SWO-A Kota, Main Branch. However, since the signature of the drawer did not match, the Accountant took the withdrawal form in his custody. Thus, due to vigilant officials, the commission of fraud was averted. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner was deputed to Navangaon Branch for recovery in terms of Regional Office, Udaipur Memorandum No.KSHEKAU;KARMIK;2444:14 dated 05.09.2014. However, he did not comply with the instructions and remained at Regional Office, Udaipur on 06.09.2014 without prior permission of the competent authority. He was therefore called upon to submit his explanation in this regard. In terms of Memorandum No. KSHEKAU-KARMIK:2460:14 dated 11.09.2014, the petitioner was again informed that in defence of the instructions of Regional Office, Udaipur he was putting his signature unauthorizedly on muster roll from 06.06.2014 to 09.09.2014 and 11.09.2014. He has therefore willfully disobeyed the instructions of the superior authority and showed utter disregard to the instructions given to him. Reply to the statement of allegation filed by the petitioner wherein he has stated that during the period when the said alleged transaction of Rs.8,000/- was transferred from the Sundry Credit Advances Department Account to Saving Bank Account in the name of Raminder Kaur Anand, the status shown in his ID was entered "which does not mean debit or credit". If there is such a wrong entry it could be deleted by authorized official and the same cannot be treated as credited in his account. It was also stated that he was under treatment of a Psychologist at that time for depression and had came to Jaipur for the said treatment and had requested the Chief Manager alongwith medical evidence for not sending him to Navagaon which was treated as defiance of instructions. It was also stated that subsequently his medical bills for the treatment had also been sanctioned and due to his sickness he was temporarily transferred from Regional Office vide order dated 31.10.2014. It was stated that the medical facility was not available in the rural area and Navagaon was 520 kilometers away. Petitioner also pointed out that he had completed 263 files in series and there had been no departmental action ever taken against him. Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry and the Presiding Officer produced 15 documents and three witnesses namely Shri O.P. Gupta, Manager (Retired) Kota Main Branch, Shri Rakesh Tungariya and Shri Mangilal Sharma, who were Assistant Manager and Officer of the Kota Main Branch. It was noticed that the Defence has not examined any witnesses nor produced any witnesses in defence. The enquiry officer has relied upon the statements of Raminder Kaur Anand whose account was alleged to have been debited of Rs.8,000/-. The Enquiry Officer taking into consideration the documents produced before it which included a statement by the account holder Raminder Kaur Anand held the petitioner guilty of charge No.1 and also held him guilty of charge no.2 for not obtaining instructions by Regional Office to report Navagaon Branch on deputation and unauthorizedly signed the Attendance Register from 06.09.2014 to 09.09.2014 and 11.09.2014.
(3.) Petitioner appearing in person submits that the letter written by Raminder Kaur Anand was exhibited by one witness Shri O.P. Gupta who is a retired Manager and Raminder Kaur Anand was never produced in evidence. The letter written by Raminder Kaur Anand that she had neither issued nor signed a loose cheque for Rs.8,000/- dated 14.08.2014 and that she did not come to the Bank to withdraw the amount that day and the cheque and signature thereon were fraudulent, but this has not been proved as she never appeared in the enquiry. The statement was recorded behind his back. Petitioner has also further stated that he was being harassed by the AGM and because of this reason he had been asked to go to Navagaon although he was suffering from depression. However, he joined his duty at Navagaon on 16.09.2014 where he remained on deputation on 31.10.2014 and upto 12.01.2015 on permanent basis and thus the allegation of the petitioner having clearly refused to comply with the orders were unjustified and it was only on account of illness for which he had submitted documents relating to medical treatment he could not have been punished. Petitioner has submitted that the loose leaf withdrawal form was neither signed by him nor it is in his handwriting. He has explained about the loose leaf stating that a boy who was found to be coming to the Bank had given the loose leaf and was not in his handwriting and allegations levelled on the petitioner attempting to defraud the Bank was mischievous as the petitioner was having 37 years of long service behind him and was receiving salary of Rs.67000/- per month and the allegation was only levelled to frame him for a petty sum of Rs.8,000/- on account of prejudice of the then AGM Ashok Dhabhai with whom the petitioner was not having good relations and there had been instances of harassment when Ashok Dhabhai was posted as Branch Manager at Ramganj Ajmer. It has been stated that the petitioner had written several representations to the Regional Headquarters with regard to the same and the said documents were on record with the Bank. The letter sending him to Navagaon on deputation was never received by him and the second charge of the petitioner having disobeyed and remained willfully absent was also not made out. It is further submitted that on account of depression he was required to attend the doctors on Sundays and he had submitted documents and medical bills which had been reimbursed by the Bank to support his defence. ;