Point of Law: Terminate from services - Departmental proceedings - It is now well settled that in departmental proceedings/domestic inquiry involving a major penalty, charge or charges against an employee have to be established by employers, not by laying papers alone before Inquiry Officer, but also examining witnesses to prove those papers, that would turn them into documentary evidence, readable against employee.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Ram Kirti Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner is an employee of the Punjab National Bank. He is a promotee to the Clerical cadre from the Class-IV cadre. He was served with two charge-sheets, separated approximately by a year in point of time, to wit, one dated 25.03.2004 and the other dated 08.04.2005. The charge-sheet dated 25.03.2004 shall hereinafter be called as the 'first charge-sheet'. The first charge-sheet, in substance, carries a charge to the effect that the petitioner, by his application dated 07.08.1987 addressed to the Bank Manager, Branch Shekhupur, District Badaun, claimed himself to be a matriculate and on that basis, claimed officiating appointment to a post in Class-III and other benefits, attached to a post in that cadre. Subsequently, the petitioner participated in the departmental promotion examination held by the Bank for the purpose of promoting eligible Class-IV employees to the Class-III cadre, representing himself to be a matriculate. It is said in the charge sheet that it has been found by the Bank that the High School mark-sheet relied upon by the petitioner is forged, and that he secured promotion to a Class-III post by playing fraud on the Bank. The charge-sheet under reference indicates this act to fall within the definition of ‘gross misconduct’ in accordance with paragraph (m) of the bipartite settlement dated 10.04.2002.

3. The petitioner was asked to put in his reply within ten days. The petitioner filed a reply/written statement dated 10.05.2004, addressed to the Senior Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, through proper channel. It appears that not much was done on the first charge-sheet by the Bank after the petitioner had put in his reply/written statement, last mentioned. The record shows that this charge-sheet was based on a complaint made by one Smt. Premwati, claiming to be the petitioner's wife, who had complained against him to the Bank videcomplaint dated 19.01.2004, inter alia carrying allegations of the petitioner marrying three other women after her, besides reporting the fact that the petitioner had secured promotion to the Class-III cadre, relying on a forged High School mark-sheet. Smt. Premwati, last mentioned, did not rest content with reporting the matter to the respondent-Bank. Complaining of inaction on the Bank's part, she instituted a writ petition before this Court, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 40337 of 2004, seeking a direction to the Bank to conclude the inquiry and terminate services of the petitioner on the basis of her complaint dated 19.01.2004, after due inquiry.

4. This Court videjudgment and order dated 27.10.2005, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Bank to conduct an inquiry into the complaint laid by the petitioner’s wife, that is to say, Smt. Premwati, “dated 24.07.1978 (sic)” within four months from the date of the said judgment. It was also ordered that the competent authority will also get a copy of the Mark Sheet produced by the petitioner verified from the Uttar Pradesh Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad before arriving at any conclusion.

5. It is averred by the petitioner in paragraph nos. 13 and 15 of the writ petition that during this period of time, there was some difference, personal in nature, between the petitioner and the Branch Manager, that led to the issue of another charge-sheet to him, dated 08.04.2005. Here, the petitioner was charged with embezzlement/misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 83,940/-, that was deposited by one Pawan Mishra and another Meera Jaiswal, but not credited to their account. It was said that a cash deposit slip was issued by the petitioner to the account holder, but no entry was made thereof in the cash book or credited to the customer's account. This charge-sheet dated 08.04.2005 shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'second-charge sheet'.

6. There is little quarrel ab