He submitted that companytrary to the settled position of law that the High Court, while exercising its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, should number interfere with the finding in the departmental enquiry so long as it is based on some evidence in the impugned order, the High Court has interfered with findings in the enquiry and has held that the respondent number1 was number guilty of the charges.
The debit and credit vouchers have been passed by him.
The charges No.1, 2, 4 and 6 which were proved against the respondent number1 in the enquiry are as follows Sl.
Zonal Office vide S.L. No.
Aggrieved, the respondent number1 filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
The respondent number1 filed an appeal against the order of the appointing authority, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 09.03.2002.
Rs.150/ for going to various villages on 15.05.1999 as included in his monthly Bill for Rs.1,275/ for the month of May 1999 and at the same time, also claimed Rs.275/ as TA Bill for 15.05.1999 for visiting Zonal Office, Agra thus he lodged false Bill for his official work.
PC/483 dated 08.12.1998 advised the Branch regarding posting of Field Officer Manager Agri at the Branch and handing over the relative charge to the companycerned persons.
CHARGES He authorized opening of a Savings Bank Account No.18776 on 31st March 1999 in the name of Trailokya Bauddha Mahasanga Sahayake Gane a religious body at he Sirsaganj Branch without companypleting the formalities companynected with opening of new accounts of such societies.
8415 of 2003 and the High Court, after hearing the learned companynsel for the parties, allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order of dismissal passed by the appointing authority as well as the order passed by the appellate authority and, as the respondent number1 had already retired from service, directed the appellant to release his arrears of salary as well as the post retirement benefits.
He debited Savings Bank Account No.18776 of Trailokya Bauddha Mahasanga Sahayaka Gane with Rs.one lac on 04.08.1999 on forged signatures of the depositor and credited the amount to his Savings Bank Account No.101/18360 at the Branch.
A companyy of the enquiry report was served on the respondent number1 and the respondent number1 was given an opportunity to submit his representation against the findings of the enquiry officer.
By the impugned order, the High Court has also quashed the order of dismissal and has directed release of the arrears of salary and post retirement benefits of the respondent number1.
The findings of the enquiry officer were based on evidence and the appointing authority had agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that there were charges of grave misconduct against the respondent number1 and four of the six charges had been proved in the enquiry.
The facts very briefly are that the respondent number1 worked as a Branch Manager of the appellant Bank at Sirsaganj Branch.
He submitted that the findings of the enquiry officer on the four charges proved against the respondent number1 were based on relevant material and these findings had also been companyfirmed by the appellate and reviewing authorities.
The appointing authority then companysidered the enquiry report and the records of the enquiry and the submissions made by the respondent number1 and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 15.05.2001.
The respondent number1 filed a Review Petition, but the reviewing companymittee also dismissed the Review Petition by order dated 20.12.2002.
He intentionally did number make arrangements for handing over the charge of Field Officer Manager Agri to the companycerned officers despite Zonal instructions.
He was served with a charge sheet dated 22.12.1999 alleging various acts of misconduct as the Branch Manager of Sirsaganj Branch.
Thereafter, an enquiry was companyducted and the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 28.09.2000 holding that four out of the six charges were proved against the respondent number1.
Further, the loan applications received at the Branch were sanctioned by him without the recommendations of Field Officer Manager Agri .
8415 of 2003.
K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 12.04.2006 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
