Disciplinary proceedings must be based on independent evidence rather than solely on confessions made during police investigations; absence thereof renders penalties invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. The petitioner, while working in a clerical cadre as a Cashier with Respondent-State Bank of India at Gonda Branch, has faced a disciplinary proceedings and his name was also revealed during investigation as an accused in a F.I.R. lodged by one Asha Pundir on 20.06.2024 about withdrawal of Rs.55 lakhs from her bank account without her information or permission.

2. The petitioner was arrested on 26.11.2014 and was released on bail vide an order dated 09.02.2015 passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh.

3. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 18.04.2015 against the petitioner also on which cognizance was taken and trial was commenced.

4. According to supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 28.01.2024, after framing charges, some of the prosecution witnesses were examined and two co-accused were also summoned on basis of an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., therefore, it appears that trial is still not concluded.

5. Simultaneously, petitioner has faced a disciplinary proceeding also and departmental charge-sheet dated 28.02.2015 was submitted and petitioner was placed under suspension. Charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner that he has committed following irregularities:

^^1½ vkids }kjk cSad dh xksiuh;rk dks Hkax fd;k x;kA

2½ vkidh feyhHkxr ls ;g /kks[kk/kMh dh x;hA

3½ vkids bl d`R; ls cSad ls 55-20 yk[k :Œ dh gkfu gqbZ rFkk cSda dh Nfo dks viw.kuh; {kfr iagqph gSA^^

6. Regional Manager of State Bank of India vide an order dated 15.04.2015 appointed Sri H.C. Sarkar, Chief Manager/Vigilance Department, Legal Head, New Delhi, as an Inquiry Officer.

7. After conclusion of inquiry, a written brief of Presenting Officer was submitted that the petitioner has breached secrecy of bank, he has committed fraud by hatching conspiracy and by aforesaid act, bank has suffered a loss of Rs.55.20 lakhs.

8. Petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to above referred brief and has annexed various documents and denied all allegations made therein.

9. The Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report dated 09.10.2015 that all the three charges were proved against the petitioner and relevant part thereof i.e. finding of the Inquiry Officer on each charge is mentioned hereinafter:

“My Findings

Following table gives the details of the amount withdrawn from A/c No.30860679645 of Smt. Asha Pundir by deposit Cheques by opening forged/fake account in other Branches.

Pex 1/1 is the copy of office note submitted to Regional Manager, Region-II, by Chief Manager (Admin), in which it is revealed that the EPA has shared all the information with the fraudster regarding the A/c No.30860679645 of Smt. Asha Pundir. As a result, large amounts of withdrawals took place through different Branches by depositing Cheques bearing forged signature of drawer. It is only possible when an insider/Bank Employee pr