JUDGMENT :

1. Present writ petition is filed being aggrieved of termination order dated 31.03.2014 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service in view of the charge-sheet dated 09.01.2013. It is also noted that against the said dismissal order, an appeal was preferred and the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.01.2014. Review application filed by the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 29.11.2014 and therefore the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on 01.05.1984 on the post of clerk with the respondent-Bank against substantive vacancy through regular selection. He was promoted on 02.04.2005 as a Junior Manager Grade-1. The cause and controversy in the matter arose when on 21.12.2012, while the petitioner was working as an Officer in Karauli Branch of respondent-Bank, he came to be suspended under contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and a show-cause-notice (SCN) dated 08.02.2013 was issued regarding certain irregularities observed in the advances portfolio of Branch in relation to certain accounts.

3. In response to the said SCN, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 18.03.2013 refuting each and every charge levelled against him. It is submitted that Karauli Branch was a small branch having staff of only three employees; a Manager, petitioner himself and a IVth class employee, wherein the petitioner was discharging duties of handling Cash and Report Section, used to make entries only on the directions given by the Manager. Impugned charge-sheet (Annexure-4) was issued and served under Regulation 6 of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (in short ‘Discipline Regulation 1976’) for violation of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 (in short ‘Conduct Regulation 1976’) wherein allegation for mala-fide, misconduct, dishonesty with authority were specified along with charges of connivance with Manager Mr. Bairwa.

4. In response to the said charge-sheet, a reply dated 04.09.2013 was furnished and the allegations levelled were refuted in entirety. On 31.01.2014, disciplinary authority, after considering the reply to the said charge-sheet, issued an order for punishment of dismissal from services under Regulation 4(J) of Disciplinary Regulation 1976. Against the same, an appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2014. Thereafter, review application was also rejected by Reviewing Authority after considering the order in original passed in pursuance to the charge-sheet, vide order dated 29.11.2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while acting as an Officer, the petitioner had carried out his duties on the instructions of Manager-Mr. Bairwa. On the said instructions he had recorded certain entries in favour of family members of the Manager. By the said entries the petitioner was not at any advantage, nor the said entries have given any personal benefit to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Manager, Mr. B.L. Bairwa, committed all fake entries levelled in the charge-sheet by misusing trailer password of the petitioner and the entire embezzled amount was used exclusively by him for his own benefit.

6. The petitioner admits opening saving bank accounts in the name of his wife and children, however he maintains that he has not carried out any fraudulent transactions which gave him, or any of his family members, any personal/individual benefit. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no mention of any loss to the bank in the charge-sheet, nor has any quantified loss been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Manager has accepted the fault/misconduct on his part and has deposited the entire amount quantifying to approx Rs.9.65 lakhs in toto which shows petitioners