Point of Law: Distinct allegations against employee charged in the same transaction would be justified being based on a valid classification and no perversity or arbitrariness can be alleged in the process.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner was employed as Office Assistant in Kashi Gomti Sanyukt Gramin Bank, Branch Gohana, District Mau. On 25.04.2014 he was placed under suspension alongwith one Chandra Bhanu Singh, Assistant Manager, posted in the same branch. Services of petitioner were governed by Kashi Gomti Sanyukt Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. A charge sheet was issued to petitioner on 07.11.2014 levelling following charges:

^^1- fu"BkiwoZd vius drZO;ks ,oa nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu u djukA

2- CkSd xzkgdksa ds [kkrks es futh ykHk ,oa 'kk[kk ds vU; dkfeZdks dks ykHk igqWpkus ds mnns'; ls /kks[kk/kM+h ,oa diViw.kZ izo`f"V;kW djukA

3- cSad ds xzkgdks ,oa cSad ds fo'okl dks Hkax djrs gq, cSad ds Åij tkucw>dj vkfFkZd {kfr dk Hkkj [kM+k djukA

4- dk'kh xkserh la;qDr xzkeh.k cSad¼vf/kdkjh ,oa deZpkjh½ lsok fofu;e 2010 ds fofu;e 18] 20 ,oa 27 dk mYya?ku djUkkA

5- cSad deZpkjh gksus tSlk dk;Z u djukA^^

2. Particulars of charges were enclosed with the charge sheet, according to which, petitioner unauthorizedly withdrew a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-from saving bank account no.201400262, belonging to Lavtu Ram, on 24.01.2014 and again on 28.01.2014 a sum of Rs.1,36,789/-was transferred from his account to the account of Chandra Bhanu Singh, who was working as Assistant Manager, in his COD Account No.4020020112. This was done without knowledge and consent of account holder. After complaint of account holder Lavtu Ram the petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs.3,62,000/-from account of one Jai Karan Ram bearing no.201400188 and deposited it in the account of Lavtu Ram on 07.02.2014. It was found that in all three transactions the transfer vouchers, signatures of account holder and details varied. The account holders Lavtu Ram and Jai Karan Ram disputed their signatures on the documents used for such transfer of funds. The act of withdrawing Rs.3,62,000/-from account of Jai Karan Ram was a fraudulent transaction performed by the petitioner for causing loss to the bank and also breached the trust reposed by account holders in the bank and its authorities. It was also found that the amounts deposited in the account of Assistant Manager Chandra Bhanu Singh was diverted in his provident fund loan account. These transactions were allegedly performed by the petitioner.

3. The second incident/transaction was of withdrawing Rs.2,05,000/-on 04.02.2014 and Rs.27,000/-on 06.02.2014 from the accounts of Jai Prakash Yadav and Imtiyaz Ahmad and depositing it in the account of petitioner without consent and knowledge of the account holder. These transactions were absolutely fraudulent, without consent of the account holders and allegedly breached the trust imposed by the bank in the petitioner.

4. The third charge was of unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.604 expenditure towards news account.

5. The charges were denied by the petitioner and a detailed enquiry followed which has culminated in submission of enquiry report dated 30.09.2015, contained in Annexure-17 to the writ petition.

6. On the first charge the Enquiry Officer held that transfer of funds from the saving bank account of account holder without his consent and knowledge, and transferring it to the account of Chandra Bhanu Singh is clearly a deliberate and intentional act contrary to the service rules and the specific instructions of the bank, and is wholly unbecoming of a bank employee in view of the regulations 18, 20 and 27 of the Service Regulations of 2010. The second charge of transferring funds in the account of petitioner himself, in similar fashion, is also found violative of regulation 27. The third charge was also found proved. In view of such conclusions drawn the enquiry report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority by the Enquiry Officer.

7. A show cause notice thereafter was issued to petitioner on 10.03.2016. The disciplinary authority after examining the charges and evidences led in the enquiry prima facie found the charges to be proved. The show cause notice also indicated the pun