- (1.) We have heard learned counsel for both sides. The appellant being Head Clerk in the State Bank of India was dismissed from service after departmental inquiry. He was also being prosecuted for the embezzlement. He has been acquitted in the criminal trial. However, before the acquittal could take place, the appellant had already been dismissed from service, pursuant to the inquiry. The dismissal was challenged before the learned single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petition by a detail reasoned order dated 24th November, 2009 and hence this appeal.
(2.) In paragraph nos. 13 and 14, the learned single Judge has held as follows: "13. The next point with regard to non-examination of handwriting expert in the departmental proceeding is concerned, it appears that when the Accountant and the branch Manager of the Bank appeared and deposed as witnesses in the departmental proceeding to substantiate the fact that it was the petitioner, who made fake and fictitious entries in the Saving Bank Accounts in question and it was he, who authenticated those fake entries in the Saving Bank Accounts and it was he, who put his signature on the withdrawal forms then in my view, non-examination of the handwriting expert is of no value. It appears that there was overwhelming evidence both oral and documentary to prove the charge and on consideration of the same the charges were found to be established. Over and above in the present case as I have noticed above that even the defence counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the departmental proceedings also admitted that those disputed entries were made by the petitioner, therefore, there is no doubt that it was the petitioner, who made those fake entries and he was instrumental in getting the amount withdrawn from the Saving Bank Account. 14. Lastly coming to the question of quantum of punishment, in my view, as rightly submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Bank that in the cases of banking service, loss of confidence of an employee is prime consideration in awarding the punishment. The image of the Bank comes to stake when a responsible employee like a Head Clerk indulges in gross misconduct and he makes entries in the Saving Bank Accounts by committing forgery in such case, in my view, the punishment of dismissal from service is the only punishment befitting with such misconduct. Therefore, in my view, the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service cannot be said to be disproportionate or excessive to the charges levelled against him. No case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary authority dated 29.11.1997 contained in Annexure-9 as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 1st November 1999 contained in Annexure-10 to this writ application."
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that under para 521(2)(c) of the Sastry Award, the appellant was entitled to three months' notice or salary.;