JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order No. CHQ/DD/2024-717 dated 24.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner has been removed from service. Challenge has also been thrown to order No. JKB/ED/CHQ/2025-468 dated 20.03.2025 issued by respondent No. 2 whereby order regarding his removal from service issued by respondent No. 3 has been confirmed. Besides this, the petitioner has also challenged enquiry report dated 05.09.2024 drawn by respondent No. 4. The petitioner has further sought a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

02. As per case of the petitioner, he joined the service of respondent-Bank on 18.03.2017 as Relationship Executive Officer at Branch Unit, Janipur. Thereafter he was transferred to Branch Unit, Vijaypur and later on transferred to Branch Unit, Sumb Baletar. The petitioner was designated as Assistant Manager as a Probationer Officer and after completing his probationary period, he was made permanent officer and transferred to Branch Unit, Aminabad Lucknow where he was posted as Assistant Manager.

03. According to the petitioner on 08.09.2022, Sh. Paras Singh Sambyal, cousin brother of the petitioner was in urgent need of Rs. 98,000/-, so the petitioner deposited two entries of Rs. 49,000/- each in his account but later on he came to know that his afore-named cousin had already received cash from his father so he reversed the transaction within few hours through CRT mode. Again on 27.01.2023, the petitioner is stated to have transferred an amount of Rs. 7.74 lakhs from the account of his father to his personal account with the consensus of the officials.

04. It is the further case of the petitioner that in December, 2022, the Branch Head of Branch Unit, Aminabad instructed the petitioner and his team to make tele-calling to the customers whose accounts are inactive and share the list of the same as the bank had launched a drive for activation of inactive accounts. It has been submitted that pursuant to these instructions, the petitioner called one Sh. Sanjay Arora on phone for activation of his inactive account but the said customer informed the petitioner that he is out of station and instructed him to activate his account on the basis of KYC documents already lying with the bank. Accordingly, the petitioner activated his account.

05. It has been submitted that on 15.03.2023, said Sh. Sanjay Arora again contacted the petitioner and told him that he is in need of funds so he intends to withdraw the entire amount lying in his account. It has been further submitted that the said customer informed the petitioner that he would be reaching late during the working hours and he would get the cash from the petitioner and would also sign the voucher. According to the petitioner, he, with the consent of other officials, withdrew the amount from the account of the said customer under a dummy voucher and waited for the customer till 6.30 p.m but he did not turn up, so the petitioner had to place the cash in the vault. Next day, the petitioner is stated to have credited the amount in the account of afore-named customer.

06. It has been submitted that vide order dated 24.05.2023, the petitioner was placed under suspension and vide order dated 03.01.2024, he was served the chargesheet. In response to the chargesheet, the petitioner submitted his reply and the enquiry against him in respect of the charges proceeded ahead. The Enquiry Officer-respondent No. 4 is stated to have submitted his impugned enquiry report dated 05.09.2024 to the disciplinary authority whereafter show cause notice dated 19.11.2024 was served upon the petitioner asking him as to why punishment of removal from service should not be imposed upon him. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his reply to the said show cause notice vide his communication dated 19.12.2024 and he was also personally heard by the disciplinary