The case emphasizes the need for bank officers to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity, especially when dealing with public money. Misconduct in such cases must be dealt with firmly.

S. Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.05.2000 passed by respondent no. 4 (Disciplinary Authority) imposing punishment of removal from service and order dated 30.04.2002 passed by respondent no. 2 (Appellate Authority) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and affirming the order of Disciplinary Authority.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that petitioner was appointed as Branch Manager in Madhubani Kshetriya Gramin Bank in the year 1980. He was posted at Raghopur Barha Branch in June 1990. He instituted a criminal case in Patuna Police Station on 21.03.1994 regarding destruction and damage of several papers documents and records of Bank by some unknown miscreants giving rise to Bisfi (Patuna) P.S. Case No. 27 of 1994. On 25.04.1994, respondent no. 3, Chairman of the Bank lodged Bisfi (Patuna) P.S. Case No. 51 of 1994 against petitioner (Branch Manager) Musafir Thakur (Cashier) and Satish Chandra Jha (Messenger) under Section 467, 468, 420, 409 of IPC.

4. Petitioner was suspended on 12.05.1994 by respondent no. 3 and suspension was revoked on 21.11.1994 and again petitioner was suspended on 05.12.1994 and respondent no. 3 on the same day i.e. 05.10.1994 appointed Subhash as Enquiry Officer to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Allegation against petitioner was that on 21.03.1994, the Branch was to be audited by an Audit Party of the Bank and in view to hide his misdeeds and to destroy the evidence of his acts of omission and commission and misappropriation of bank money, petitioner destroyed the documents and lodged a frivolous FIR that miscreants had entered into the bank and destroyed the Bank papers and documents. Even the police found the allegations to be false and found that petitioner himself had destroyed the papers and documents in the Bank and had lodged a false case to conceal his misdeeds and fraudulent acts.

5. Subsequently, an inventory list was prepared at Branch by a team to ascertain the lost records and subsequently a second team was send for reassembling and reconstruction of destroyed records. After the dislocated transaction of the Branch during 21.03.1994 to 06.04.1994, working was allowed to be resumed on 07.04.1994 and new Branch Manager was appointed who send reports regarding irregularities committed by petitioner.

6. A memo of charge dated 05.10.1994 was served upon the petitioner with respect to misappropriation, embezzlement negligence in discharge of duty, moral turpitude and breach of banking discipline and acts detrimental to the interest of Bank. Articles of charge were framed against the petitioner in which various acts of omission and commission and embezzlement of depositors money were made part of memo of charge. Allegation is of fraudulent act and misappropriation of depositors money where they had deposited money in cash and entries were made by petitioner in their Pass-book but actually these amounts were not deposited in the bank account.

7. On completion of enquiry, second show cause notice along with copy of Enquiry Report was served upon the petitioner and petitioner submitted his reply against the finding of Enquiry Officer to the respondent no. 3 (Disciplinary Authority).

8. On the basis of findings of Enquiry Officer and considering reply submitted by petitioner, respondent no. 3 (Disciplinary Authority) on 14.08.1995 imposed punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner. Petitioner preferred appeal before respondent no. 2 but his appeal was also dismissed on 06.11.1996.

9. Against order of departmental authorities dismissing him from service petitioner filed CWJC No. 306 of 1997 in Patna High Court and after hearing the parties, the writ petition was allowed on technical grounds and order of dismissal passed by departmental authorities were set aside with a direction to appoint another Enquiry Officer and to deci