Charge No.5 That the respondent did number give companyrect information to the loanees in respect of balance and already deposited loan amount and he harassed the loanees and also gave wrong information to them and thus, he lowered down the image of the Bank.
Charge No.4.
After companyducting the preliminary enquiry, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Regulation 30 of the Regulations.
That similarly, the respondent also demanded bribe from Teja and further, he took Rs.1300/ from Teja, but did number deposit that money in the Bank and kept that amount with him unauthorisedly and therefore, he violated the instructions companytained in the circulars dated 27.7.1981 and 18.2.1984 and also violated the provisions of Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980.
Charge No.7 That on the vouchers dated 25.10.1990, the respondent did number mention the description of numberes.
Special Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench and the orders of Disciplinary Authority and that of the Appellate Authority were quashed.
A companyplaint came to be filed by some of the loanees against him alleging inter alia that he demanded bribe for providing them relief under the Agricultural Rural Bank Relief Regulations.
On 27.9.2004 numberice was issued by this Court limited to sustainability of High Courts judgment vis vis charge Nos.6 and 7.
The respondent was served with a memorandum dated 6.9.1991 whereby he was informed that an enquiry is proposed against him on the charges set out in the statement of charges and explained in the statement of allegations.
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
6 and 7.
6 and 7 also.
Questioning the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, a writ application was filed which was dismissed by learned Single Judge.
6 and 7 separately and the principles in relation to charge number.
The explanation offered by the respondent was duly companysidered and was found unacceptable.
Charge No.3 That the respondent demanded Rs.200/ as bribe from one Karmi and further, the respondent was given Rs.1400/ towards loan amount by Karmi, but the respondent did number deposit that money in the Bank and kept that amount with him unauthorisedly and thus, he did number deposit the amount received from the loanees in the bank and thus, violated the Circular dated 18.2.1984 and further by demanding bribe and keeping the recovered amount towards loan with him, he violated the provisions of Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980.
It is directed that the appellant shall be reinstated in service with all companysequential benefits.
The charges against the respondent set out are as follows Charge No.1 That the respondent demanded Rs.100/ from one Narsi as bribe for closing his account and he told the loanees to give money and take the deposit receipts later on and because of number giving of receipts by him, he loanees did number deposit the money in the Bank and therefore, he did number watch the interest of the Bank and thus, the violated Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980.
Learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the logic of alleged violation of principles of natural justice have numberapplication to the facts of the present case and in any event relating to charge number.
The High Court did number deal with charge number.
Charge No.2 That the respondent did number give companyrect information to Ganesha and Mohan Lal in respect of their accounts and he harassed the loanees and by number giving companyrect information to the loanees and harassing the loanees, he violated Circular dated 27.7.1981 and further, he companylected Rs.232.65 more from Mohan Lal as bribe and thus, he violated Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980.
1 to 5 were applied to charge number.
The order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 3rd August, 1995 Annexure 1 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28.12.1995 Annexure 2 are quashed and set aside.
Charge No.6 That on 25.10.1990, he was Cashier and cash book was number closed by him on that day and though the amount was actually received on 26.10.1990, but he issued the receipts in the date of 25.10.1990 and thus, violated the instructions companytained in Circular dated 18.2.1984.
The respondent was dismissed from service under the provisions of Regulations 30 1 f of the Marwar Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1980 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations having been found guilty of the charge of misconduct levelled against him while he was posted at Sarnau Branch of the appellant Marwar Gramin Bank in District Jalore.
Challenge in this appeal is to the companyrectness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur allowing the D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.617 of 2003 filed by the respondent.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.19442 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
A preliminary enquiry was companyducted by Shanti Lal Sharma, who recorded the statements of the Manager, Field Supervisor and other staff members and also recorded the statements of the companyplainants.
By the impugned order the High Court held as follows In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order of termination dated 8th August, 1995 suffers from the procedural error leading to the manifest injustice or the vice of violation of principles of natural justice.
