Employee dismissal requires substantial evidence of misconduct; failure to provide independent proof necessitates reconsideration of disciplinary actions.

ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 21.08.2009 bearing Na.Ka.No.10865/2005/A2 passed by the second respondent and the order dated 10.01.2014 bearing Na.Ka.No.2466/2010/Sa.Pa.1 passed by the first respondent. By the said orders, the petitioner, who was working as Secretary in the second respondent society, was dismissed from service.

2. The charge memo dated 05.01.2006 issued to the Petitioner reads as follows:

“Charge No 1:- While working as Secretary in the 3rd respondent bank by committing irregularities in the savings accounts of the members for the period from 12.07.1997 to 04.09.2005, there was misappropriation to the tune of Rs 13,23,426/-.

Charge No 2:- By committing irregularities in the fixed deposit accounts there was misappropriation and causing loss to the tune of Rs. 1,15,304/-.

Charge No 3:- Due to the serious misconduct and irregularities, there was a loss to the tune of Rs.56,300/- in the agriculture loan Identity scheme.

Charge No.4:-During the same period by issuing fictitious loans to the members and also failure to discharge the duties there was a loss to the society to the tune of Rs. 1,04, 200/-

Charge No. 5: During the same period by sanctioning agricultural loan and consumer loan to the ex-President and his family members and due to the above misconduct there was a loss to the tune of 2,24,520/-.

Charge No. 6: - During the same period consumer loans issued by the society lesser interest was fixed and collected and thereby there was a loss to the tune of Rs 3, 16,995/- and further by crediting excess interest in the account of the depositor there was a loss to the tune of Rs.5750/- thereby there was a total loss of Rs. 3,22,745/-

Charge No.7: During the same period in connivance with the junior clerk Tmt. M.Sumathi there was misappropriation and thereby bank sustained loss to the tune of Rs.97796/-

Charge No. 8: During the period from 1.4.2005 to 4.9.2005 by making false entries regarding the income and expenditure accounts and committed misappropriation and the bank sustained loss to the tune of Rs.5,04,220/-.

Charge No.9:- During the period from 1.2.1977 to 4.9.2005 (even prior to the date of appointment till the date of suspension) the petitioner failed to discharge the duties and thereby there was a financial shortage in the bank.

3.After receiving the aforesaid charge memo and statement of imputations, the petitioner requested the second respondent to furnish the documents relating to the charges. The petitioner claims that no documents were furnished by the society. However, the second respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry. Before the Enquiry Officer, both the management representative and the petitioner participated in the enquiry. The statements of the management representative as well as the petitioner were recorded, and after considering the same, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the enquiry report should not be accepted and appropriate punishment should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted his further explanation stating that, as per the norms of the Bank, d