Judgment On Board

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby setting aside-quashing the impugned orders dated 07.07.2021 and 05.01.2021 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.

10.2 That, any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.

2) The facts in brief are that petitioner was appointed to the post of Sweeper in Punjab National Bank, Divisional Office, Medical College Road, Raipur vide order dated 26.9.2009 and his services were regularized upon completion of probation period. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Clerk vide order dated 1.8.2016. In March, 2019, petitioner was posted as Head Cashier at Punjab National Bank, Branch Manendragarh, District Koriya.

3) A complaint was made by the proprietor of M/s Sahara India alleging that petitioner failed to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,06,552/- in the bank A/c of the complainant. The aforesaid disputed amount was eventually deposited by the petitioner over several dates. Respondent-bank took cognizance and served the show-cause notice and article of charges on petitioner on 19.3.2020. Petitioner filed reply and denied the allegations and stated that neither bank nor complainant suffered financial loss.

4) Departmental Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner wherein he was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and after completion of the same, an inquiry report was submitted before the disciplinary authority on 22.9.2020. Disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause notice on 17.12.2020 which was duly replied by the petitioner. On the basis of inquiry report, Assistant General Manager (HR)/ disciplinary authority imposed major punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits vide order dated 5.1.2021. Petitioner preferred departmental appeal and same was dismissed by Zonal Manager vide order dated 7.7.2021.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed amount so deposited by the complainant was refunded by the petitioner and this fact is evident from the inquiry report. He further submits that the penalty inflicted upon petitioner is disproportionate looking to the alleged misconduct therefore orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority require interference by this Court.

6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that a full fledged department inquiry was conducted wherein article of charges was issued ; Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed ; Bank examined its witnesses and exhibited relevant documents. He further contends that Inquiry Officer submitted its report before the disciplinary authority, who concurred with the inquiry report and inflicted the penalty of removal from services in terms of para 6 (b) of memorandum of BPS settlement dated 10.4.2002. He further submits that petitioner never objected the departmental inquiry, rather he actively participated in it and in reply, he admitted that he refunded the disputed amount on various dates. He contends that disciplinary authority imposed the punishment taking into account the misconduct committed by the petitioner and the appellate authority meticulously considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal and passed final order. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Versus M. Duraiswamy¹2022 SCC OnLine SC 464.

7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

8) The charges leveled against the petitioner are as under :-

1. You did not deposit an amount of Rs. 25000/-on 30/01/2019 deposited by Ms. Anju in her SF Account No. 3037001700071401 and issu