Honble ASOPA, J.–The petitioner in writ petition No. 7212/1993 Rambabu, at the relevant time, was working as Field Supervisor whereas the petitioner in writ petition No. 2385/1998 Prabhu Dayal Gupta was working as Manager and eight charges of misappropriation were levelled against him, out of which one charge/allegation No. 8 was identical to the sole charge against Rambabu, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7212/1993. The petitioner Ram Babu Thathera has challenged the punishment order dated 31.1.1992 whereby he has been punished with stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect and Appellate Authoritys order dated 13.8.1993 whereby appeal preferred by him was dismissed. Further on the basis of the reasoning given in the said punishment order dated 31.1.1992 of Ram Babu Thathera, in Writ Petition No. 2385/1998 petitioner P.D. Gupta has been exonerated of allegation No. 8 and he was punished in respect of another allegation No. 1 with stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 13.2.1999, which was challenged by way of amendment in the writ petition and the same was allowed. On account of the aforesaid common charge/allegation, both the writ petitions were tagged and heard together.

Facts of Rambabu Thatheras case (Writ petition No. 7212/1993)

(2). While working as Field Supervisor, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet on 16.5.1990 levelling the charge that he committed certain acts which amounted to misconduct under Regulation 19 and 30 of the Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1981 (Amended 1982) (in short ``the REgulations) and the petitioner failed to serve the bank honestly and faithfully so much so that while working as Field Supervisor, he prepared a false pre-sanction report dated 19.6.1986 in respect of Smt. Shanti Devi w/o Cheetarmal Balai (Loan Account No. 1441) as borrower and got the loan sanctioned for Rs. 1600/- on 21.6.1986 in favour of the said borrower on the blank loan documents and pocketed the amount. The loan amount with interest was deposited on 30.9.1987 by Shri Thathera through Bajrang Lal S/o Shri Mohan Singh. Thus, the petitioner has violated/contravened Regulation 19 and 30 of the Regulations. The allegations upon which the above article of charge is based, have been given with the statement of allegations. In the statement of allegations main allegation is that Shri Thathera obtained thumb impression of Smt. Shanti Devi on the blank loan documents, debit vouchers and later on filled in/prepared the same in her name without conducting pre/post inspection visit. The loan amount of Rs. 1600/- was not paid either to borrower or to the reported seller. Middle part of statement of allegation is with regard to collusion of the petitioner with Shri P.D. Gupta in sanctioning and disbursing the loan to the alleged reported seller. Last part of the allegation is with regard to depositing the same by the petitioner through Shri Bajrang Lal Sarpanch on 30.9.87.

(3). The petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet and denied the allegation and further submitted that in respect of the same incident of sanction and disbursement of bogus loan in the name of fictitious borrower, CBI has conducted an enquiry for the offence under Section 420, 467, 477(A) IPC read with section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the Branch Manager P.D. Gupta. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was also made co-accused, but negative final report was filed against all of them and the CBI has suggested the Bank to conduct the departmental enquiry. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 9.6.1988 and after two years, aforesaid charge sheet was served on 16.5.1990. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner has protested against the appointment of CBI Inspector as a Presenting Officer, but when the Bank declined to change him, the petitioner made a request for assistance of an Advocat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document